 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2007Proper Usage
What is the correct version, if any? 1. I've got food poisoning. 2. I've got food poisoned. 3. I'm being food poisoned. The last one doesn't sound right because it somehow conveys that someone was poisoning me on purpose. What I'm trying to say is that together with other people who attended a party, I (or you, or we, etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired accidentally via altered food. > What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. I'd say #1.  SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. "I've got food poisoning." That's how I'd say it. New York/New England. --Jeff SignatureIt is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair > > What is the correct version, if any? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "I've got food poisoning." That's how I'd say it. New York/New > England. I agree that the first is the best. The second is simply wrong. The third struck me as unidiomatic initially, but there are more than 300 Google hits (a tiny number, as Google hits go, but not zero) for "being food poisoned." After looking at a few of them I realized that it really doesn't sound all that bad. Still, No. 1 is best, and that's what I'd use. SignatureBob Lieblich Idiom Vacant (accent on second syllable please) > What is the correct version, if any? > 1. I've got food poisoning. > 2. I've got food poisoned. > 3. I'm being food poisoned. > The last one doesn't sound right because it somehow conveys that > someone was poisoning me on purpose. What I'm trying to say is that > together with other people who attended a party, I (or you, or we, > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. Hmm, well. You cannot "get" food poisoning. However, you can "suffer" food poisoning. Many will say, "I got a cold." This is acceptable but not good grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" food poisoning as with a cold or the flu. I suffer food poisoning. I am suffering food poisoning. I am enduring food poisoning. I have symptoms of food poisoning. I am food poisoned. I was food poisoned. I feel food poisoning coming on. I feel I am being food poisoned. I suffered food poisoning. Purl Gurl > > What is the correct version, if any? > > 1. I've got food poisoning. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I feel I am being food poisoned. > I suffered food poisoning. Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in the symptoms? > Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in > the symptoms?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The simple present is moribund in this case. But even 'I'm suffering food poisoning' seems odd. Go with 'I'm having food poisoning' which in real life would probably come out 'I think I'm having food poisoning' which I presume you're saying just as you're starting to feel funny having just eaten something. jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > > Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in > > the symptoms?- Hide quoted text - Yes, but it's a general statement rather than saying what is happening now. To say what is happening now, "I am suffering from food poisoning". > > - Show quoted text - > The simple present is moribund in this case. But even 'I'm suffering > food poisoning' seems odd. Go with 'I'm having food poisoning' which > in real life would probably come out 'I think I'm having food > poisoning' which I presume you're saying just as you're starting to > feel funny having just eaten something. Nope. "I'm having food poisoning" is not ideomatic, except possibly in Indian English. I would say it's either : - I've got food poisoning; or - I have food poisoning. SignatureDavid ===== > Nope. "I'm having food poisoning" is not ideomatic... What's the idea? SignatureRay UK > jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -- On second thoughts, 'I'm having food poisoning' does sound odd but I don't think that ' I've got food poisoning' or 'I have food poisoning' would come out in any circumstances either. It would almost certainly be 'I've been food poisoned' [...] > On second thoughts, 'I'm having food poisoning' does sound odd but I > don't think that ' I've got food poisoning' or 'I have food poisoning' > would come out in any circumstances either. "I've got food poisoning" is what I would normally say; and there is nothing wrong with "I have food poisoning" either. (IMOAABrENS) > It would almost certainly > be 'I've been food poisoned' Never in a month of Sundays. You might possibly say "I've been poisoned by the food", or "It was the tiramisu wot dun it", or similar. SignatureLes > [...] > > > On second thoughts, 'I'm having food poisoning' does sound odd but I > > don't think that ' I've got food poisoning' or 'I have food poisoning' > > would come out in any circumstances either. No, there's nothing wrong with them.I was only wondering whether there would be circumstances when you'd say them. Having thought about it, I now see when you'd say that. Say you're just starting to feel the symptons. You're feeling giddy or whatever. Then you'd say 'Boy, I feel funny. I think I've food poisoning'. So I take back what I said before. I was actually thinking of having had food poisoning, having beeen hospitalized and when lying on your bed being asked what happened to you. You wouldn't say then, 'I have food poisoning' because you don't have it anymore. > "I've got food poisoning" is what I would normally say; and there is nothing > wrong with "I have food poisoning" either. (IMOAABrENS) > > It would almost certainly > > be 'I've been food poisoned' > > Never in a month of Sundays. You might possibly say "I've been poisoned by > the food", or "It was the tiramisu wot dun it", or similar. No, people do say 'food poisoned' a lot. Google has somehing like 60,000 hits. But I agree that the practice of turning nouns to verbs is generally better avoided. [...] >> > It would almost certainly >> > be 'I've been food poisoned' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 60,000 hits. But I agree that the practice of turning nouns to verbs > is generally better avoided. Most people do. "I've been food poisoned" gets 66 Google hits (here). "They've been food poisoned" gets 0 Google hits. "We've been food poisoned" gets 0 Google hits (here). "Food poisoned" gets 40,968 hits; the ones I looked at mostly seemed to be newspaper headlines and similar." SignatureLes [...] > > > It would almost certainly > > > be 'I've been food poisoned' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 60,000 hits. But I agree that the practice of turning nouns to verbs > is generally better avoided. There is nothing wrong, in the least, with using a noun as a verb. English just doesn't have watertight barriers between the parts of speech. It's horrible when this characteristic is exploited without discretion, but it's the way the language works. Now, about those Ggl hits. Mrs Lyle's little boy is not about to look at all 69,900 of them; but this looks like a good example of the Great Truth that search engines, like fire, guns, alcohol, and linguists, are fine servants but shocking masters. Of the first 10 results on <"food poisoned">, 4 were the same piece, saying "Tainted pet food poisoned 1 in 6 animals in test"; 2 were identical returns of "Protein Tests to Diagnose Pet Food-poisoned Dogs" ("pet-food-poisoned" would have made the meaning clearer); 1 was "Nixon's [possessive] Food Poisoned"; 1 was "Washington, Johnson, four others food poisoned"; 1 was "64 Villagers Food Poisoned in South Africa"; and, finally, 1 yielded "More than 100 people were food poisoned last Saturday when. . ." Of these 10, only the last 3 - count them - were examples of the usage you recommend. And of these, but one, the last, was _not_ in a news headline. It came from China. I'm sure the results would be different next week, but these ones do seem to illustrate something of a trend. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: >>>> Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included >>>> in the symptoms?- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > would come out in any circumstances either. It would almost certainly > be 'I've been food poisoned' Oh, good grief, no. That last one is a really strange one. By the way, I find it a bit strange that BrE uses "on second thoughts". Can there be more than one second thought? Wouldn't that be a third or fourth thought? (Yeah, I know -- I have mentioned this a couple of years ago.) SignatureSkitt Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base. > >> jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > >>>> Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Oh, good grief, no. That last one is a really strange one. Tell me though, what do you find strange about it? Surely nothing other than the use of 'food poisoning' as a verb. I agree that that's tacky but hardly strange since, as has been pointed out before, people do it all the time. >>>> jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: >>>>>> Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included >>>>>> in the symptoms?- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > tacky but hardly strange since, as has been pointed out before, people > do it all the time. You were the one who pointed it out, right? It is not true for where I live, except maybe as uttered by a foreigner. There might also be the rare occasion if the poisoning were intentional. "I've been food poisoned" is not something I have ever heard. Google lists all of 66 hits, and that, for all practical purposes, amounts to zero. From what I can see, several of those hits are posts by non-native English speakers. It just ain't something most native speakers would say, but there's always some oddball who might. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ [...] > > as has been pointed out before, people > > do it all the time. > > You were the one who pointed it out, right? [...] You can see why he doesn't want other people using the passive voice! But, re the subject of the out-pointing, see my post in this thread. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > [...] >>> as has been pointed out before, people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But, re the subject of the out-pointing, see my post in this thread. I hate going back into my archives, not that it is particularly difficult, but that's why I wasn't sure about who pointed out what. Anyway, I think it no longer matters. I clear my screen regularly after reading messages, so I have very little of the thread at my fingertips at any given time. That's why I appreciate quotes of what is being commented on. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > [...] > >>> as has been pointed out before, people [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the thread at my fingertips at any given time. That's why I appreciate > quotes of what is being commented on. In case you mean what I think you may mean, it _was_ Jinhyun who "pointed out" the usage. My message revealed that he hadn't seen what he thought he had seen: the only actual example on Ggl's first page was Chinglish. The others were headlinese and stuff. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> [...] >>>>> as has been pointed out before, people [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > In case you mean what I think you may mean, it _was_ Jinhyun who > "pointed out" the usage. That's what I thought. My memory is very good, just extremely short. > My message revealed that he hadn't seen what > he thought he had seen: the only actual example on Ggl's first page > was Chinglish. The others were headlinese and stuff. Yup, I remember. Thanks. By the way, so you don't misunderstand me -- my comment about quoting stuff was a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular. I was just explaining my idiosyncrasies. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Tell me though, what do you find strange about it? Surely nothing > other than the use of 'food poisoning' as a verb. I agree that that's > tacky but hardly strange since, as has been pointed out before, people > do it all the time. I'm sure people will come up with lots of counter-examples, but for me it's the 2-wordedness of it. If it were a verb, I'd expect "foodpoisoned" or at least "food-poisoned". I don't doubt that, if the need becomes great enough, this verb will eventually make it into the language, but it hasn't reached mine yet. SignatureRob Bannister >> jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >would come out in any circumstances either. It would almost certainly >be 'I've been food poisoned' "I'm having food poisoning" will never be heard from a North American who has not recently arrived from India or countries in that general area. "I've got food poisoning" or "I have food poisoning" are the most common things you'll hear in North America from someone who is telling you that they are suffering from it. "I've been food poisoned" is probably unheard of outside your own mind. It is unidiomatic, and that is as kind a thing as I can say about it. >> Omrud wrote: (snipped) >>>>> Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in >>>>> the symptoms? >>> Yes, but it's a general statement rather than saying what is >>>> The simple present is moribund in this case. But even 'I'm suffering >>>> food poisoning' seems odd. Go with 'I'm having food poisoning' which >>>> in real life would probably come out 'I think I'm having food >>>> poisoning' which I presume you're saying just as you're starting to >>>> feel funny having just eaten something. >>>Nope. "I'm having food poisoning" is not ideomatic, except possibly >> On second thoughts, 'I'm having food poisoning' does sound odd but I >> don't think that ' I've got food poisoning' or 'I have food poisoning' >> would come out in any circumstances either. It would almost certainly >> be 'I've been food poisoned' > "I've been food poisoned" is probably unheard of outside your own > mind. It is unidiomatic, and that is as kind a thing as I can say > about it. I disagree. "Taha, recently recovered from an act of food poisoning by an Anglo, is enjoying her meal of buffalo and black-eyed peas with her tribal leader, Sees Far. Without warning, she feels, she senses she has been food poisoned again, "I have been food poisoned." Glancing at Sees Far, she quickly recognizes a familiar distressed look upon his face, "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned." Purl Gurl > I disagree. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at Sees Far, she quickly recognizes a familiar distressed look > upon his face, "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned." I think you are offering proof that it is not standard English. SignatureRob Bannister >> I disagree. >> "Taha, recently recovered from an act of food poisoning by an Anglo, >> is enjoying her meal of buffalo and black-eyed peas with her tribal >> leader, Sees Far. Without warning, she feels, she senses she has >> been food poisoned again, "I have been food poisoned." Glancing >> at Sees Far, she quickly recognizes a familiar distressed look >> upon his face, "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned." > I think you are offering proof that it is not standard English. I disagree, adamantly disagree. With your not providing reason nor explanation why you think my language usage is not standard, I shall respond in kind. Purl Gurl >>> I disagree. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nor explanation why you think my language usage is not standard, > I shall respond in kind. If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting where the reader might well expect that English was not, in fact, the mother tongue of the speakers. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I disagree. >>>> "Taha, recently recovered from an act of food poisoning by an Anglo, >>>> is enjoying her meal of buffalo and black-eyed peas with her tribal >>>> leader, Sees Far. Without warning, she feels, she senses she has >>>> been food poisoned again, "I have been food poisoned." Glancing >>>> at Sees Far, she quickly recognizes a familiar distressed look >>>> upon his face, "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned." >>> I think you are offering proof that it is not standard English. >> I disagree, adamantly disagree. With your not providing reason >> nor explanation why you think my language usage is not standard, >> I shall respond in kind. > If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it > would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting > where the reader might well expect that English was not, in fact, the > mother tongue of the speakers. I understand. Those writers who do not make use of standard English are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard English as you dictate good writers are to use. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > I understand. No, Kira, you don't. > Those writers who do not make use of standard English > are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me > to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft > and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard > English as you dictate good writers are to use. But they do use Standard English -- except for Descartes, who to my knowledge never wrote a thing in English. (Was including him intended as a joke?) Of course, they used the Standard English of their era, and it isn't quite the same as the Standard English of our era, but we can still follow them -- even Shakespeare, with the help of an occasional footnote. Many of us can still read Chaucer with a bit of assistance. That they used Standard English with wit and originality doesn't mean they were using some other dialect. You want another dialect, go read Robbie Burns. Which is it, Kira -- You don't pay any attention to what you're writing? You have no idea what you're talking about? Or you're deliberately playing the fool? Whichever it is, do you suppose you could shut up for a while? It's damned fatiguing contradicting you every time you're wrong, which is virtually every time you post anything to AUE. And it's only a matter of time before people start killfiling me. That's cruel. SignatureTired Old Lawyer >> I understand. > No, Kira, you don't. Ah, you are a practicing internet mind reader. Your mind reading skills are an object of envy. Certainly the many envy a deity such as you. >> Those writers who do not make use of standard English >> are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me >> to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft >> and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard >> English as you dictate good writers are to use. Before continuing my daily humiliation of you, I must interject a comical note. Following, you write, in part, "But they do use Standard English...they used the Standard English of their era...it isn't quite the same as the Standard English of our era...." The same but not the same. Your Alfred E. Neuman logic, as always, is impeccable. > But they do use Standard English -- except for Descartes, who to my > knowledge never wrote a thing in English. (Was including him intended [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't mean they were using some other dialect. You want another > dialect, go read Robbie Burns. So typical of you to fly off on some Sheeple Lawyer tangent to nowhere. Your comments have no connection, not a remote hint of being related to my Sees Far paragraph story. > Which is it, Kira -- You don't pay any attention to what you're > writing? You have no idea what you're talking about? Or you're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything to AUE. And it's only a matter of time before people start > killfiling me. That's cruel. Oh my, such childish Ad Hominem. How hypocritical of you! Earlier this day you deny your childish Ad Hominem, then turn right around and engage in childish Ad Hominem. Makes sense then, lawyers, who are collectively known for speaking from both sides of their mouths, often enter the political arena. Have I humiliated you to your personal satisfaction? Purl Gurl >> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it >> would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard > English as you dictate good writers are to use. (I'll probably regret this but..) I didn't think Descartes wrote in any sort of English. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it >>> would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting >>> where the reader might well expect that English was not, in fact, the >>> mother tongue of the speakers. >> I understand. Those writers who do not make use of standard English >> are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me >> to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft >> and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard >> English as you dictate good writers are to use. > (I'll probably regret this but..) I didn't think Descartes wrote in any > sort of English. No need to be insulting. Your childish Ad Hominem is unwarranted and only serves to degrade your dignity. Is yours "did not" think or "do not" think? Your past tense "didn't" indicates a change of mind and indicates you currently believe Descartes does write in English. This is, of course, quite the opposite message you intend to convey to readers. Childish Ad Hominem is rarely a viable method to intellectually insult another. There are better ways, viable and factual means to highlight intellectual deficiencies of another, such as my highlighting your less than acceptable English language skills, well evidence by your own words. Are you feeling regret? This "subtle perception" of Arcadian Rises, more specific, a lack of subtle perception has bit your butt. --- Precisely my point which, so far, is missed by all who respond. Bannister's logic is, paraphrased, "unless a writer uses standard English, his writings are to be dismissed as not acceptable." This, of course, dismisses a majority of famous writers of history and of current time, most certainly those writers who do not write in English, such as Descartes. Bannister, Lieblich and others would have readers believe only those writers who conform to standards set by Bannister, Lieblich and crowd, are writers who write in an acceptable style. Actually, I am sincerely insulted there are those who state writings of an American Indian are not acceptable because standard English is not used, according to personal standards by some participants of the group. Other words, stories told in the voice of an American Indian cannot be used as a comparison for unique writing styles, being unacceptable use of our English language, as claimed by some. Although not intended, such an attitude hints of racist overtones. Arcadian Rises writes of "subtle perception" which signals she is very sharp and quite the thinker. She earns respect from those who have an ability to recognize her high quality thinking. Around here, she receives little respect. My inclusion of Descartes is an obvious test of subtle perception with his being the "odd man" out. So far, none who respond display an ability of subtle perception. Quite the opposite, those who respond use this author, Descartes, as a point of ridicule, "Descartes never wrote in English. Purl Gurl is ignorant." No, significant ignorance is displayed by those making this ill informed claim. Bannister, those who respond, others, are ignoring Bannister's claim a writer must use standard English, and criteria for "standard" English certainly eludes this English professor, this claim of Bannister only those writings of standard English can be used for comparative analysis of writing styles is based upon an American Indian voice not being a use of standard English. Extrapolating upon his logic leads to all writers who do not write using standard English are to be rejected, hence my subtle reference to Descartes, which was not subtle at all if familiar with IQ testing techniques; square peg, round hole. Rather disappointing to learn so few have Arcadian Rises knack for "subtle perception" and _dis_appointing conveys a negative feeling in keeping with Arcadian's subtle recognition of select words being inherently uncomfortable in common meaning, certainly a majority of words beginning with "dis" as Arcadian quips in reference to these Holy Dictionaries so often cited around here, as if the Good Book. Purl Gurl > >>> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it > >>> would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > (I'll probably regret this but..) As will I, but oh well .... > > I didn't think Descartes wrote in any > > sort of English. > No need to be insulting. Your childish Ad Hominem is unwarranted > and only serves to degrade your dignity. Ms. Gurl [1], your posts often make me feel as if I've been transported to some alternate universe, in which facts and logic and English usage are all, hm, subtly different from the universe in which I've spent most of my years? I'm reminded a bit of _Alice in Wonderland_. [1] Or Dr. Gurl, or Professor Gurl. You identify yourself sometimes as a professor of English, and I know how touchy academics can be about titles. Anyway, this may be one of your best efforts yet. Ad Hominem! Ha ha! What does it mean in -- I think I'll call it PGLand. (I'd add "shall I?" -- but why make it too easy for you?) > Is yours "did not" think or "do not" think? Your past tense "didn't" > indicates a change of mind and indicates you currently believe Descartes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > highlighting your less than acceptable English language skills, > well evidence by your own words. Oops, a break in the flow of nonsense -- an occasion for someone to point out (two items of) evidence supporting Skitt's Law [2]. [2] Which I was surprised to find -- though I shouldn't have been -- has a Wikipedia entry. > Are you feeling regret? Maybe -- or bewilderment. It takes a while to get one's bearings in PGLand. > This "subtle perception" of Arcadian Rises, more specific, a lack > of subtle perception has bit your butt. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bannister's logic is, paraphrased, "unless a writer uses standard English, > his writings are to be dismissed as not acceptable." Ah yes. Paraphrasing works differently in PGLand! > This, of course, > dismisses a majority of famous writers of history and of current time, most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who conform to standards set by Bannister, Lieblich and crowd, are writers > who write in an acceptable style. PGLand telepathy? > Actually, I am sincerely insulted there are those who state writings of > an American Indian are not acceptable because standard English is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Although not intended, such an attitude hints of racist overtones. Yes! Accusations of racism! Those always raise the tone of the debate, even here in -- hm, ConsensusRealityWorld? > Arcadian Rises writes of "subtle perception" which signals she is > very sharp and quite the thinker. She earns respect from those who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of writing styles is based upon an American Indian voice not being a > use of standard English. Mention of an oppressed minority! More points! > Extrapolating upon his logic leads to all > writers who do not write using standard English are to be rejected, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > words beginning with "dis" as Arcadian quips in reference to these > Holy Dictionaries so often cited around here, as if the Good Book. Disregard for the standards of logical argument prevalent in stuffy fields such as science and law, accusations of racism, mentions of oppressed minorities, mentions of your academic background .... Oh, I get it! You're trying to show us that the unflattering stereotype of the liberal-arts college professor held by many left-brain types is not mere prejudice, but founded in reality? Or am I going to be sorry about posting in the wee hours of the morning on not quite enough caffeine .... SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. >>>> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it >>>> would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> (I'll probably regret this but..) I didn't think Descartes wrote in >> any sort of English. [..] > My inclusion of Descartes is an obvious test of subtle perception > with his being the "odd man" out. Oh, jolly good. Sometimes I miss these classical and literary allusions so it's pleasing to know that I spotted that one. But the question would need some refinement before becoming acceptable for the SDC, I think. [..] (No, no egrets - only ravens..) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> My inclusion of Descartes is an obvious test of subtle perception >> with his being the "odd man" out. > > Oh, jolly good. Sometimes I miss these classical and literary allusions > so it's pleasing to know that I spotted that one. But the question would > need some refinement before becoming acceptable for the SDC, I think. If somebody wished to be believed when claiming that something was a 'deliberate error', then they'd include a custom header to that effect and be able to prove it. >>> My inclusion of Descartes is an obvious test of subtle perception >>> with his being the "odd man" out. >> Oh, jolly good. Sometimes I miss these classical and literary >> allusions so it's pleasing to know that I spotted that one. But the >> question would need some refinement before becoming acceptable for the >> SDC, I think. > If somebody wished to be believed when claiming that something was a > 'deliberate error', then they'd include a custom header to that effect > and be able to prove it. There are those who expect readers to be of sufficient intelligence to recognize subtle word play. You are not one of those readers. Purl Gurl > There are those who expect readers to be of sufficient intelligence > to recognize subtle word play. You are not one of those readers. There seems to be something wrong with the above. Or is your phrasing one of those subtle word plays? Confused by my comment? Think "those".... SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) >> There are those who expect readers to be of sufficient intelligence >> to recognize subtle word play. You are not one of those readers. > There seems to be something wrong with the above. Is yours a statement of well accepted public fact or is yours personal opinion stated under a guise of public fact? I will afford you explanation for your benefit. *** People expect readers to be intelligent. You are not one of those readers expected to be intelligent. *** People expect Larry, Moe and Curly to be intelligent. Robert is not Larry, Moe nor Curly. Robert is not expected to be intelligent. *** Should you find yourself confused, Maria, give a little thought. I have found thinking to be a beneficial activity. Purl Gurl >>> There are those who expect readers to be of sufficient intelligence >>> to recognize subtle word play. You are not one of those readers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is yours a statement of well accepted public fact or is yours > personal opinion stated under a guise of public fact? I wrote it. I quoted no one else. My opinion. > I will afford you explanation for your benefit. > > People expect readers to be intelligent. > > You are not one of those readers expected to be intelligent. Then who is? If people "expect readers to be intelligent," the implication is that /all/ readers are expected to be intelligent. No limitations have been set. No exceptions are indicated. So: The "you" in your second sentence must be one of the readers expected to be intelligent. To exclude "you," something more must be said. Perhaps: You are one of those readers, but you have not reached expectations. SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) >>>> There are those who expect readers to be of sufficient intelligence >>>> to recognize subtle word play. You are not one of those readers. >>> There seems to be something wrong with the above. >> Is yours a statement of well accepted public fact or is yours >> personal opinion stated under a guise of public fact? > I wrote it. I quoted no one else. My opinion. Consensus carries authority. Opinion carries little authority. What I am suggesting to you is all of us tend to express our personal opinions as factual, as a rule, as being right, then reality reminds us personal opinion is always questionable. This is why witnesses make poor witnesses; personal perception is rarely reliable, related to the Grand Schemata. >> I will afford you explanation for your benefit. >> People expect readers to be intelligent. >> You are not one of those readers expected to be intelligent. > Then who is? If people "expect readers to be intelligent," the > implication is that /all/ readers are expected to be intelligent. No > limitations have been set. No exceptions are indicated. Ah, the crux. "...implication is that 'all' readers...." This is your personal perception which may or may not be the perception of others and is most likely not the perception of others. I write within a context of this discussion group, "I expect readers." My statement does not include "all" readers, clearly. My statement refers to readers here, and my statement does not set a numerical quantity such as "some," "few" nor "all." My statement leaves open many different personal perceptions. > So: The "you" in your second sentence must be one of the readers > expected to be intelligent. To exclude "you," something more must be said. According to your personal perception, of course. Mine is subtle humor and would not be subtle should I add in a lot of qualifiers as you suggest; humor would be lost. While I agree with your thoughts, support your position, have no qualms about your notions, I do not feel adding extensive clarity to a joke lends well to humor. Very often humor is based upon twisting words, based upon subtle hints, based upon what is not stated. British litotes are excellent examples of understatement and twisting of words, especially ironic agreement through negating commentary. Would you require extensive clarification of a litotes? No. This would ruin the pretzel like humor of the litotes. You are discussing personal writing style. Your personal writing style is different than mine, this is an unspoken given. I respect your chosen writing style just as I respect writing styles of others. I expect the same respect in return. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > Consensus carries authority. Opinion carries little authority. I'm amazed to see that you realize this, Kiralynne. Given how infrequently anyone here ever agrees with you, perhaps you should reflect on whether what you are posting here is consensus or opinion, then act accordingly. No charge for this sage advice. [ ... ] -- The Opinionated Attorney > Consensus carries authority. Opinion carries little authority. Opinion is mostly what you get in a newsgroup. Consensus is rare. Further, I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself in AUE. Also, I am confident that what I said in my previous post about your usage is correct. You differ, and that's your privilige, just as it's my privilige to say you're wrong. Consider it said yet again. [...] SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) (snipped - read thread for context) > Further, I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself in AUE. Also, I am > confident that what I said in my previous post about your usage is > correct. You differ, and that's your privilige, just as it's my > privilige to say you're wrong. Your position is most illogical. These matters of which we write have no right nor wrong attached. These are matters of writing style, sense of humor and personal opinion. I have graciously offered my support of your point of view, have announced your point of view correct although different than mine. My position is exceptionally logical. Certainly you are privileged to state I am wrong just as others are privileged to witness dogmatic, illogical behavior on your part which does not lend well to your credibility. Purl Gurl > Your position is most illogical. These matters of which we write > have no right nor wrong attached. These are matters of writing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are privileged to witness dogmatic, illogical behavior on > your part which does not lend well to your credibility. You've had the last word (above). I don't intend to reply to it or to anything else you may post in follow-up. Have fun. SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) >>>>> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, >>>>> it would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a >>>>> setting where the reader might well expect that English was not, in >>>>> fact, the mother tongue of the speakers. >>>> I understand. Those writers who do not make use of standard English >>>> are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me >>>> to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft >>>> and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard >>>> English as you dictate good writers are to use. >>> (I'll probably regret this but..) I didn't think Descartes wrote in >>> any sort of English. >> My inclusion of Descartes is an obvious test of subtle perception >> with his being the "odd man" out. > Oh, jolly good. You are being facetious as I. > Sometimes I miss these classical and literary allusions Highly unlikely. You are exceptionally well educated and very intelligent. > so it's pleasing to know that I spotted that one. But the question would > need some refinement before becoming acceptable for the SDC, I think. What question? I have not a clue what your "SDC" means, I don't do abbreviations. Fascinates me these lengths to which the boys around here will stretch reality simply for sake of ego w.nking. On almost a daily basis this discussion group is literally smothered by masculine ego w.nking which discourages discussions, very much so. What fascinates me more is this broad acceptance of ego w.nking as being the norm rather than being the abhorrent. Purl Gurl >Fascinates me these lengths to which the boys around here will >stretch reality simply for sake of ego w.nking. On almost a daily >basis this discussion group is literally smothered by masculine >ego w.nking which discourages discussions, very much so. And yet, the "girls" here - except for you - seem to hold their own, discuss what they want to discuss, and do quite well in the give and take that is aue. Not all of them reserve their slicing and dicing for the kitchen, either. Pick your top five of the posters that most regulars would avoid crossing swords with, and most lists would contain a higher percentage of females on the list than the percentage of females that participate regularly in this group. Mine would run 3/2; males to females. The elephant you think is in the room is pink. Cut back on the Kickapoo Joy Juice. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> Fascinates me these lengths to which the boys around here will >> stretch reality simply for sake of ego w.nking. On almost a daily >> basis this discussion group is literally smothered by masculine >> ego w.nking which discourages discussions, very much so. > And yet, the "girls" here - except for you - seem to hold their own, > discuss what they want to discuss, and do quite well in the give and > take that is aue. Not all of them reserve their slicing and dicing > for the kitchen, either. "except for you" - You have no reason to be insulting, Tony. Childish insults like this only prompt me to treat a person as a child, which is most appropriate treatment. I would rather not treat you as being a child. Arcadian Rising is an assertive independent thinker, much as I am. I consider her to be a challenging peer and do escalate her to a higher social status than almost all here. She quickly earned my respect not so much by her polite nature rather by her assertive and intelligent behavior; she will debate me in an intelligent manner which I truly enjoy. She is one before whom I will bend the knee, with enjoyment. I also consider Evan to be a challenging peer for much the same reasons as Arcadian Rising. Evan is also polite and is very intelligent, but a little bit annoying at times which is just fine with me; I am annoying most of the time. The rest of the "girls" here tend to be nice, tend to be polite and are clearly smart. All girls here are significantly better mannered than are the boys here, and tend to display thinking which is intellectually superior to the boys here. However, most of the girls here, those I know of and have observed, tend to toe the masculine line; they rarely contradict the boys. For this reason, I toss most the girls here in with the boys, this is, no gender distinction, just another one of the boys. > Pick your top five of the posters that most regulars would avoid > crossing swords with, and most lists would contain a higher percentage > of females on the list than the percentage of females that participate > regularly in this group. Mine would run 3/2; males to females. This is impossible. Boys here number ten to one for each girl. This group is highly predominated by males. Well, maybe eight to one. I think I made a very rough guesstimate of twenty percent girl population, but many of those have not been active for a year or more. On a daily basis, active girls here represent less than ten percent of participants. Your criteria is quite different than mine. There are people I avoid and all of those people are boys. My criteria is based upon degree of hatred displayed, degree of hypocrisy displayed, degree of arrogance displayed and finally degree of personal insults displayed. All of those qualities inherently are based upon a high degree of ignorance. More simply, I tend to ignore people who are simply not friendly. You are setting a criteria based on intelligence and knowledge. Those criteria do not factor into my world view. I do not sort people by their intelligence and education. I sort people by how they behave. My preference is to sit and swap lies with an illiterate rather than sit and be intellectually insulted by an arrogant polymath. I like having fun and almost all boys here are not fun. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > My preference is to sit and swap lies with an illiterate rather than > sit and be intellectually insulted by an arrogant polymath. Why am I not surprised? SignatureBob Lieblich Arrogane Polymath (You betcha, Red Ryder) >> My preference is to sit and swap lies with an illiterate rather than >> sit and be intellectually insulted by an arrogant polymath. > Why am I not surprised? Because you are one of those illiterates. Purl Gurl > >> My preference is to sit and swap lies with an illiterate rather than > >> sit and be intellectually insulted by an arrogant polymath. > > > Why am I not surprised? > > Because you are one of those illiterates. And it's such fun sitting and swapping lies with you. SignatureLarry the lying Lawyer (snipped) > I like having fun and almost all boys here are not fun. I am being unfair. I should write "most of the boys" rather than paint with a harsh "almost all" broad paint brush. There are boys who are fun, Evan, Roland, Draney, Skitt and a few others whose monikers elude my simple mind. Do not be insulted by my not mentioning you, I simply cannot recall all monikers off the cuff. Lieblich could be fun but I have more fun tinkering with his mind, which he deserves. Purl Gurl - off to watch Prison Break and 24 >>> Fascinates me these lengths to which the boys around here will >>> stretch reality simply for sake of ego w.nking. On almost a daily [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >"except for you" - You have no reason to be insulting, Tony. No insult. Just fact. You are not holding your own. You've not earned a modicum of respect. You've become a novelty; a dwarf throwing contest. Some watch to see how high and how far, but few say "I'll take a turn at that". >Childish insults like this only prompt me to treat a person >as a child, which is most appropriate treatment. I would rather >not treat you as being a child. That's fine with me. Just put your "sticks on you" in the first sentence or paragraph. I rarely read your posts beyond that. >However, most of the girls here, those I know of and have observed, >tend to toe the masculine line; they rarely contradict the boys. They do with reason, but usually they add to the discussion rather than contradict what has been said. >> Pick your top five of the posters that most regulars would avoid >> crossing swords with, and most lists would contain a higher percentage >> of females on the list than the percentage of females that participate >> regularly in this group. Mine would run 3/2; males to females. > >This is impossible. Boys here number ten to one for each girl. What seems to be impossible is for you to read and understand what is written and appears on your screen. If you pick five posters, the ratio could most certainly be 3/2 males to females. That will be a higher percentage of females than the overall make-up of aue regulars. >Your criteria is quite different than mine. There are people I avoid >and all of those people are boys. You avoid the "boys"? I've seen less chum thrown out at a shark-catching tournament. >My preference is to sit and swap lies with an illiterate rather than >sit and be intellectually insulted by an arrogant polymath. Well, you *are* using the right bait to bring in the illiterate. Problem is that you're dangling your bait in a bucket instead of where the fish are. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL (snipped) >>>> Fascinates me these lengths to which the boys around here will >>>> stretch reality simply for sake of ego w.nking. On almost a daily >>>> basis this discussion group is literally smothered by masculine >>>> ego w.nking which discourages discussions, very much so. >>> And yet, the "girls" here - except for you - seem to hold their own, >> "except for you" - You have no reason to be insulting, Tony. > No insult. You are lying, Tony, much the same as Balmer. You are a person who delights in assaulting others with personal insults. > You've not earned a modicum of respect. You mistake me for a person who cares. I would be humiliated to respected by most people here. I do not want to be associated with most people here. Most people here are ignorant and very hateful. I do not want others to associate me with you people; this would be demeaning. I will continue to treat you as an age addled childish man. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > I would be humiliated to respected by most people here. Then why are you wasting your time on us? Do you enjoy being disrespected by people you hold in contempt? Are you a masochist? > I do not want to be associated with most people here. Then why are you? > Most people here are ignorant and very hateful. Then why do you expose yourself to their ignorance and hate? We don't seem to be learning anything from you -- mostly you insult us -- so it's not as if you're on a mission of mercy. > I do not want others to associate me with you people; this would be demeaning. I associate you with the rest of AUE. I'm sure anyone else who devotes more than a day or two to this group makes the same connection. You are as much a participant in this group as anyone else. You probably post more to AUE than anyone else. Who's demeaning who? > I will continue to treat you as an age addled childish man. And we will continue to treat you as you seem to want. SignatureThe Liebs Palms read and psyches analyzed in my spare time >> You've not earned a modicum of respect. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ignorant and very hateful. I do not want others to associate me >with you people; this would be demeaning. This desire to disassociate yourself from us is carried out by your flood of posts and links to photographs of yourself? I cannot imagine what you would do if your intent was to worm your way into the favor of the regulars here. You'd be fine if you stuck to telling Tales from the Reservation and other Okie Spokies. They can be interesting. Unfortunately, you insist on messing about with English usage points where you come up a duster. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> You've not earned a modicum of respect. >> You mistake me for a person who cares. >> I would be humiliated to respected by most people here. I do not >> want to be associated with most people here. Most people here are >> ignorant and very hateful. I do not want others to associate me >> with you people; this would be demeaning. > This desire to disassociate yourself from us is carried out by your > flood of posts and links to photographs of yourself? Your thinking is illogical, is disassociated. There is no relationship between a desire to not be associated with a "thing" and a desire to "disassociate" from a "thing." "with" and "from" are key terms. Families in Iraq do not want to be associated with war but cannot disassociate themselves from the war. Poor families in Harlem do not want to be associated with crime, but do not want to disassociate from their lifelong homes. I submit your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > Your thinking is illogical, is disassociated. > > There is no relationship between a desire to not be > associated with a "thing" and a desire to "disassociate" > from a "thing." None? How bizaeer. I have no desire to be associated with the positions you take on English grammar and usage, and I desire greatly to disassociate myself from them, which, as you may have noticed, I do with monotonous regularity. > "with" and "from" are key terms. No, luv, they're just prepositions. > Families in Iraq do not want to be associated with war > but cannot disassociate themselves from the war. But you can disassociate yourself from AUE. Stop reading. Stop posting. > Poor families in Harlem do not want to be associated > with crime, but do not want to disassociate from > their lifelong homes. Is AUE your lifelong home? > I submit your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I submit that your thinking has become incoherent. SignatureBobby Barrister Thank you for the practice [...] > You are lying, Tony, much the same as Balmer. You are a person who > delights in assaulting others with personal insults. At least I'm not a hypocrite, unlike you. > > You've not earned a modicum of respect. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ignorant and very hateful. I do not want others to associate me > with you people; this would be demeaning. Then why the flying f.ck are you still here? Practically no-one here thinks you know anything worth knowing about English usage. Your advice is almost invariably wrong, and when offered to a newcomer who doesn't realise quite what a crock they're being given, requires one of us (us being those who actually know what we're talking about) gently to direct the questioner towards a fount of knowledge, rather than a dribbling tap of stupidity. To cap it all, you are almost certainly the most ignorant person who posts here (certainly with regard to English usage, though for all I know or care you're a whizz at Perl) and your sexist, misandrist and agist language and stereotyping are also very hateful. (tony cooper wrote:) >> You are lying, Tony, much the same as Balmer. You are a person who >> delights in assaulting others with personal insults. > At least I'm not a hypocrite, unlike you. >>> You've not earned a modicum of respect. >> You mistake me for a person who cares. >> I would be humiliated to respected by most people here. I do not >> want to be associated with most people here. Most people here are >> ignorant and very hateful. I do not want others to associate me >> with you people; this would be demeaning. > Then why the flying f.ck are you still here? Practically no-one here > thinks you know anything worth knowing about English usage. Your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently to direct the questioner towards a fount of knowledge, rather > than a dribbling tap of stupidity. > To cap it all, you are almost certainly the most ignorant person who > posts here (certainly with regard to English usage, though for all I > know or care you're a whizz at Perl) and your sexist, misandrist and > agist language and stereotyping are also very hateful. Hey, crack head, how is life in the paranoid lane? With your being a crack addict, certainly you spend a lot of money supporting your drug addiction. Are you a crack whore? Purl Gurl > (tony cooper wrote:) > >> You are lying, Tony, much the same as Balmer. You are a person who [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Are you a crack whore? Oh very nice, not at all hateful. By the way, you definitely need help with your reading comprehension skills. I already told you that cocaine is not crack - maybe some of your self-advertised academic skills could help you to do some essential research. I also told you that I'm not an addict. And what has the amount of money I spend on cocaine (annually, approximately what the average adult spends per week on alcohol) got to do with the price of fish? It is, of course, worth noting that this really, really stupid person is unable to address herself to the substantive points in any of my posts, but instead falls back on inaccurate and hate-filled ad hominem remarks. What a loser hypocrite! >> (tony cooper wrote:) (snipped) >>> Then why the flying f.ck are you still here? Practically no-one here >>> thinks you know anything worth knowing about English usage. Your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> know or care you're a whizz at Perl) and your sexist, misandrist and >>> agist language and stereotyping are also very hateful. >> Hey, crack head, how is life in the paranoid lane? >> With your being a crack addict, certainly you spend >> a lot of money supporting your drug addiction. >> Are you a crack whore? > Oh very nice, not at all hateful. By the way, you definitely need > help with your reading comprehension skills. I already told you that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cocaine (annually, approximately what the average adult spends per > week on alcohol) got to do with the price of fish? > It is, of course, worth noting that this really, really stupid person > is unable to address herself to the substantive points in any of my > posts, but instead falls back on inaccurate and hate-filled ad hominem > remarks. What a loser hypocrite! I understand. Abuse of cocaine is ok. Abuse of crack cocaine is not ok. Yours is much like pot heads claiming, "smoking pot is no different than drinking booze," to rationalize their being drug abusers. Pot and booze are no different. Both are drugs and both make you stupid and both often to lead underachievement in life, if not outright failure. Cocaine and methamphetamine, which you also abuse, are quite different. Hard drugs of this nature cause permanent brain damage. Once a crackhead, forever a crackhead. Once a speedfreak, forever a speedfreak. You cannot recover from brain damage. Hey, crackhead, are you brain damaged? You forgot to toss in your "f.ck" variations in your response. Mr. Balmer, you have harassed me for over a year with little objection on my part. I tolerated you. However, of late, you have taken to vicious and vulgar attacks upon me. This annoys me. I believe this worsening you display is related to your worsening of drug abuse and worsening of brain damage. I believe you to be constantly intoxicated and believe you to be a drug addict. You have harassed me for over a year, today I am serving your just deserves, and mine is deserves not desserts. Yippie-yi-yo-ki-yay cowboy! Purl Gurl - drug free, naturally stupid and proud to be [...] > I understand. Abuse of cocaine is ok. Abuse of crack cocaine is not ok. You misrepresent my position, stated earlier. It is my belief that adults should be permitted to do with their own bodies exactly what they want. It is completely inconsistent and ridiculous to permit adults to purchase hard spirits and tobacco (which cause much more death and disease than proscribed narcotics) and at the same time to criminalise adults whose choice of stimulant is outwith those allowed by the nanny state. Prohibition of Alcohol in the US didn't work in the 1920s - prohibition of other drugs isn't working now. > Yours is much My what? Are you drunk? > Yours is much like pot heads claiming, "smoking pot is no different > than drinking booze," to rationalize their being drug abusers. But smoking pot is entirely different from (not than - you wouldn't say "x differs than y" - oh, *you* probably would) drinking booze. But unlike you I wot whereof I speak - smoking crack cocaine is NOT the same as sniffing cocaine - unless you think that drinking shandy is the same as drinking methylated spirits. Perhaps you do - you're certainly perverse enough. > Pot and booze are no different. Both are drugs and both make you stupid > and both often to lead underachievement in life, if not outright failure. Pot and booze *are* different - I'm tempted to suppose that you've tried neither, or that at the very least you haven't tried one of them. There are even different kinds of pot, though I haven't actually taken pot for about ten years so I'm rather out of the loop on this. However, your research, should you actually choose to back up your wild and knee-jerk assertions with some facts, might indicate to you that while pot and booze *can* lead to underachievement and failure, there are many counter-examples of people who have succeeded at the very highest level while consuming prodigious quantities - Winston Churchill, for one. > Cocaine and methamphetamine, which you also abuse, are quite different. I don't abuse methamphetamine - I've never even tried it. I *have* taken amphetamine sulphate, about twenty or so years ago. Hear this - "methamphetamine" is not "amphetamine sulphate" - or only in the most terminally clueles, the sort of people who might also think that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were the same thing. > Hard drugs of this nature cause permanent brain damage. Once a crackhead, > forever a crackhead. Once a speedfreak, forever a speedfreak. You know absolutely less than nothing about his, do you? In words that you might understand: 1. I'm not a crackhead - I've never tried crack, and have no intention of trying it. And it is possible to break the habit. 2. I'm not a speedfreak - I last took speed over twenty years ago, and have no desire to try it again. Once more, it is possible to break the habit. > You cannot recover from brain damage. So what's your excuse? > Hey, crackhead, are you brain damaged? You forgot to toss in your "f.ck" > variations in your response. You forgot to toss in your "butt" variations in yours. In answer to your question - no, I am not brain damaged, as my literate and logical response should indicate. Since I last took speed, I have begun and completed a Batchelor's degree in Computer Science, in which I came top of my year and obtained a First Class Honours degreee. If we're looking for evidence of brain damage, I think most people here would agree that your bizarre offerings in AUE would form meat and drink to neurologists and associated disciplines searching for evidence of occulded brain function. > Mr. Balmer, you have harassed me for over a year with little objection > on my part. I tolerated you. However, of late, you have taken to vicious > and vulgar attacks upon me. This annoys me. Well, I'll stop attacking you if you stop attacking the English language. Though I would certainly argue that your ignorant attempts to paint me as some sort of mind-addled crackhead on the basis of a single enquiry to alt.drugs.cocaine show that it is you whose attacks are "vicious and vulgar". There is, I realise, almost no chance at all that you will see the fault in your own behaviour, because you're perfect, right? > I believe this worsening you display is related to your worsening of > drug abuse and worsening of brain damage. I believe you to be constantly > intoxicated and believe you to be a drug addict. Your belief is wrong. Vide supra. > You have harassed me for over a year, today I am serving your just deserves, > and mine is deserves not desserts. What on earth does that mean? No, don't tell me, I've more important things to think about. > Yippie-yi-yo-ki-yay cowboy! > > Purl Gurl - drug free, naturally stupid and proud to be Well, we can agree on your being stupid. > It is my belief that > adults should be permitted to do with their own bodies exactly what > they want. But you *are* permitted to do exactly what you want with your body. You may chop off your arm, destroy your brain or put a bullet through it, throw yourself under a street roller or whatever you fancy to do, and there will be no criminal charges even if you survive. It's not what you are permitted to do but how you are permitted to do it. You're not allowed to get a Stinger to blow your head off (except maybe in the US), so you have to settle with a handgun instead. Do you find this unfair? But then, you've probably attended countless debates over this issue by now and there aren't many arguments you haven't already heard, so this may not be the right time and place to go on with this. I just wanted to have this said. -- Trust me, I think I know what I'm doing. [ snip ] > Your criteria is [ .... ] > [ .... ] My criteria is based [ .... ] > > You are setting a criteria [ .... ] Once might be a typo. Several times .... Oh well, all right; "criteria" is singular in PGLand. [ snip ] SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. blmblm wrote: > [ snip ] >> Your criteria is [ .... ] >> [ .... ] My criteria is based [ .... ] >> You are setting a criteria [ .... ] > Once might be a typo. Several times .... Oh well, all right; > "criteria" is singular in PGLand. Yours is a stunning display of ignorance. Well done. Purl Gurl > blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yours is a stunning display of ignorance. Well done. This may be high praise, and perhaps I should leave it at that, but I would be interested in hearing what you think is ignorant about what I wrote -- if you're not too stunned to reply, that is. Point by point: In standard English, singular verbs are used only with singular subjects, and "a" is used only with singular nouns. Do you disagree? In standard English, the word "criteria" is plural (with "criterion" being plural). Do you disagree? You have used "criteria" with a singular verb and with "a". So in Purl Gurl English, either this word is singular, or the rules about subject/verb agreement and article usage are different from what I wrote above. Do you disagree? Perhaps my error was in assuming that your usage differs from standard English in its rules for subject/verb agreement and article usage rather than in whether the word "criteria" is singular or plural. I suppose that *would* be ignorant, but I'm only now starting to catch on that Purl Gurl English, like Purl Gurl logic, is different from what I'm accustomed to. Please bear with me as I try to master this foreign-to-me environment. (I notice that in another thread Linz (Amethyst Deceiver) seems a bit confused too about whether the word "criteria" is singular or plural. I had thought better of her. Ah well. Anyone can make a mistake once?) SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > [ snip ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > [ snip ] Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: ========= usage The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century <let me now return to the third criteria -- R. M. Nixon> <that really is the criteria -- Bert Lance>. Many of our examples, like the two foregoing, are taken from speech. But singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda. ========= Personally, I'd never use "criteria" for the singular. "Criterion" is much classier. SignatureSkitt Trying for A Touch of Class (I speak English well; I learn it form a book.) [...] > Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: > ========= [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Personally, I'd never use "criteria" for the singular. "Criterion" > is much classier. Me too. But I question M-W's implication about "agenda". Of course it's plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be done, but of a group or list of things to be done. That would mean that it's more like the title of a book or paper: we say "_The Poems of Shelley_ is on the shelf". I can't think of a parallel which isn't a proper name, but I imagine there must be at least one. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > [...] >> Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > it's plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be > done, but of a group or list of things to be done. That, of course, is the change that has come to be. 'Twasn't so in times past, I reckon. > That would mean > that it's more like the title of a book or paper: we say "_The Poems > of Shelley_ is on the shelf". I can't think of a parallel which isn't > a proper name, but I imagine there must be at least one. The other thing I noted that the examples of "criteria" used as a singular are by two politicians, neither of which is noted for his prowess in English. Quite often, usage changes stem from misusage, misunderstanding, or error, and this change appears to be no different. SignatureSkitt I may not understand what you say, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it. --Albert Alligator > [...] > > Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be done, but > of a group or list of things to be done. But isn't that what M-W is saying? that "agenda", despite being plural in origin, is now regarded as singular, and that no one questions this usage? > That would mean that it's more > like the title of a book or paper: we say "_The Poems of Shelley_ is on > the shelf". I can't think of a parallel which isn't a proper name, but I > imagine there must be at least one. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. >> [...] >>> Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > plural in origin, is now regarded as singular, and that no one > questions this usage? My point is that "agenda" and "criteria" become singular by completely different processes. "A criteria" is simply a senseless mistake; "an agenda" makes sense. Perhaps the example below isn't a very good one, but it's as near as I can get to a parallel. We don't use "agenda" as the plural of the obsolete "agend" (sic): because we see it as the heading on a list, we use it to refer to a group of actions or subjects for discussion en masse. This is behaviour no less reasonable than my example. >> That would mean that it's more >> like the title of a book or paper: we say "_The Poems of Shelley_ is >> on the shelf". I can't think of a parallel which isn't a proper >> name, but I imagine there must be at least one. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> [...] > >>> Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > different processes. "A criteria" is simply a senseless mistake; "an > agenda" makes sense. Ohhhh .... Yes, quite. I misunderstood. Sorry. So if "criteria is" becomes acceptable, it will be by the route by which "data is" may be becoming acceptable? by changing from the plural of a count nouns to a mass noun? [ snip ] SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. >[...] > So if "criteria is" becomes acceptable, it will be by the route by > which "data is" may be becoming acceptable? by changing from the > plural of a count nouns to a mass noun? > > [ snip ] Not quite, as "a criteria" will refer to one thing, so it won't be mass; we don't yet find "a data" (no, don't bother: it's Ggl-proof). SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >[...] > > So if "criteria is" becomes acceptable, it will be by the route by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not quite, as "a criteria" will refer to one thing, so it won't be mass; Ah. Yes, you're right that there is a need to refer to a collection of, um, criterions? For data, I would probably write just that, "collection of data", but that is wordier. But then it seems more like "criteria" *will* follow the example of "agenda", moving from a plural to something that describes a collection of items. Now I'm confused again, but it's probably not that important. > we don't yet find "a data" (no, don't bother: it's Ggl-proof). Good. I already get exposure to plenty of usage I think is ugly. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > So if "criteria is" becomes acceptable, it will be by the route by > which "data is" may be becoming acceptable? by changing from the > plural of a count nouns to a mass noun? I find it very difficult to conceive of "criteria" as a mass count noun. If a simplification is necessary, it would make a lot more sense to start using "criterions" as the plural and abolish "criteria" (and "phenomena") completely. SignatureRob Bannister >> Me too. But I question M-W's implication about "agenda". Of course >> it's plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plural in origin, is now regarded as singular, and that no one > questions this usage? No one? I've certainly been in meetings where I've heard statements like "agendum number 5 will have to be postponed to the next meeting." Perhaps it depends on whether the agenda consists of numbered items. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > >> Me too. But I question M-W's implication about "agenda". Of course > >> it's plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Perhaps it depends on whether the agenda consists of numbered items. Could be. But it seems to me use of "agendum" isn't necessarily an indication that the speaker regards "agenda" as plural, though that does seem more logical. In those meetings where you hear "agendum" -- do you also hear "agenda are"? Just curious. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. >>> But isn't that what M-W is saying? that "agenda", despite being >>> plural in origin, is now regarded as singular, and that no one [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > does seem more logical. In those meetings where you hear "agendum" > -- do you also hear "agenda are"? Just curious. Now that you mention it, no. At least, I can't recall any examples. I've never thought of it that way, but it could well be that "agendum" and "agenda" are two separate singular nouns in the minds of some people. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>>> But isn't that what M-W is saying? that "agenda", despite being >>>> plural in origin, is now regarded as singular, and that no one [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "agendum" and "agenda" are two separate singular nouns in the minds > of some people. The way I understand Mike L's point upthread is that 'agenda' is really two words. The singular container is named after the plural things it contains. The container name is now the much more frequently used word. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> Me too. But I question M-W's implication about "agenda". Of course >>> it's plural in form; but I feel the idea is not now of things to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No one? I've certainly been in meetings where I've heard statements like > "agendum number 5 will have to be postponed to the next meeting." I have heard it, but not nearly as often as "different agendas". SignatureRob Bannister > blmblm wrote: (snipped) >>> Your criteria is [ .... ] >>> [ .... ] My criteria is based [ .... ] >>> You are setting a criteria [ .... ] >> Once might be a typo. Several times .... Oh well, all right; >> "criteria" is singular in PGLand. > Here's what M-W Online has to offer on this: > The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century > <let me now return to the third criteria -- R. M. Nixon> <that really is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned > acceptability of agenda. > Personally, I'd never use "criteria" for the singular. "Criterion" is > much classier. I am not a classy broad although broad of aft. Criteria enjoys a status of data; singular or plural is acceptable. Like data, our criteria is a collection of "things" much thought of as a package, a single package containing treats which may be removed one at at time or in multiples. Adding to criteria behaving as both singular and plural is we rarely set a single criterion for sorting, assessment, judgment or other. For most case examples we set a number of criterion which compose a singular package we casually label criteria. blmblm has repeated his oft mistake of treating a dictionary as the Good Book rather than treating words as words are commonly treated in usage. Clearly blmblm did not read much in his dictionary, rather zeroed in on "plural" then instantly jumped on a chance to spread discontent. Criteria, strata, data, phenomena, memoranda along with a handful of other words all share two common qualities; all end with "a" and all exhibit popular usage in both singular tense and plural tense. Purl Gurl > > blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Criteria enjoys a status of data; singular or plural is acceptable. Well, I don't agree with you about "criteria", but .... You know, on re-reading the M-W entry Skitt quotes, I'm not sure M-W quite thinks "criteria is" is 100% acceptable. Something about that "Only time will tell" remark .... (Off-topic aside: Anyone else use the online Merriam-Webster with a text-mode browser? I couldn't make it work, with either lynx or (e)links. Hm.) > Like data, our criteria is a collection of "things" much thought of > as a package, a single package containing treats which may be removed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For most case examples we set a number of criterion which compose > a singular package we casually label criteria. The thing that's kind of funny here (ha-ha and peculiar both) is that while in general I'm a stickler for the Rules As I Was Taught Them In 1960-Something, I make an exception for "data", which I'm happy to regard as singular. I suspect I'm influenced here by long exposure to writings about computers, in which the word "data" is most often used in contexts in which regarding it as a mass noun (taking a singular verb) makes more sense than the alternative. Computer scientists mostly write "data is", though you find some authors and editors who prefer "data are". Other academics seem to fall much more strongly into the "data are" camp. I suspect they don't think of data in quite the same way we CS types do. But I digress. You have a point that one could make a similar argument about "criteria". I'm not willing to help push the language in that direction, but -- you have a point. > blmblm has repeated his oft mistake of treating a dictionary > as the Good Book rather than treating words as words are > commonly treated in usage. Why yes, I am a prescriptivist. (Has this really come up here enough to justify "oft mistake"? Huh.) I think that some linguistic change arises from ignorance and misuse, and some of it has bad results. Example: I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that there was a time not too long ago when "effect" could be used as a verb with some reasonable hope that readers would not simply assume it was an, um, alternate spelling of "affect". Now if you use "effect" as a verb, I suspect that a significant number of readers will assume you mean "influence". Some of them will also think you should have written "affect" and be annoyed. My thinking is that the language has lost a bit of expressivity and precision because this distinction can no longer be made, with no compensating gain. > Clearly blmblm did not read much in his dictionary, Well, that's true -- all I read (in the online OED) was the entry for "criterion", which lists "criteria" as its plural and gives no indication that the plural form can also be used as singular. There is no separate entry for "criteria". Perhaps a note about usage similar to M-W's is hiding somewhere, available by clicking some button I'm not noticing, but I think I looked fairly carefully. I also dusted off my older printed copy of the OED and discovered that it also makes no mention that "criteria" can be used as singular -- well, unless it's somewhere other than in the entries for "criteria" ("plural of criterion") and "criterion". Where else would it be, however? It's true that I might not have made the best choice of dictionary; the OED can be somewhat UK-centric. Before sending the post that got us into this mess I did make an attempt at a cursory Web search (Google, search term "define:criteria"). Skimming the first few definitions supported my opinion. Perhaps next time I will also consult the online Merriam-Webster -- if I can figure out how to do so with a text-mode environment. > rather zeroed > in on "plural" then instantly jumped on a chance to spread discontent. Now, motives. I'll admit that some of mine for pointing out what I believed (and still believe) to be nonstandard usage do not, as they say, bear close examination. But correcting other people's usage -- sometimes even their typos -- is one of things that is done in this group. So I'll apologize for not doing enough homework before posting, but not for trying to participate to the best of my poor ability in one of the group's customs. [ snip ] Now, should I say something about that "his" .... Well, not to you -- I tried that a few weeks ago, and it didn't turn out well. Other readers might want to note that I'm female. I wouldn't make a fuss about it if it weren't for the fact that there seem not to be many of us in Usenetland, and countering inaccurate stereotypes seems worth doing when feasible. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote, in very small part: > It's true that I might not have made the best choice of dictionary; > the OED can be somewhat UK-centric. Before sending the post that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consult the online Merriam-Webster -- if I can figure out how to > do so with a text-mode environment. As another bit of information, here's what AHD4 has: ========== USAGE NOTE: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data, criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however, it is not yet acceptable in that use. ========== I sense a consensus among those keeping track of such things. SignatureSkitt Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base. > > [ snip ] > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda. > ========= Aaaarrrrgggghhhh ..... If I'd just waited a *FEW MORE MINUTES* before posting my reply to Purl Gurl, maybe I'd have noticed your post and saved myself some embarrassment. Once again it appears that I have Not Kept Up with language evolution. I did make some effort to confirm my belief that "criteria" was still more correctly regarded as plural, but <deep sigh> apparently I didn't check the right sources. (I tried the online OED via my workplace's subscription and also a quick Google search on "define:criteria", both of which appeared to confirm my belief.) I guess I should bookmark the online M-W for next time. Or get another hobby. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. [...] > Aaaarrrrgggghhhh ..... [...] Criteria is plural. Don't let the bastards get you down. SignatureLes Going down with the ship > blmblm wrote: >> Aaaarrrrgggghhhh ..... > Criteria is plural. Don't let the bastards get you down. Criteria is also singular. Those bastards are rather smart. Well, except "bastards" is masculine in nature which renders my comment about being smart quite oxymoronic. Purl Gurl - smart bitch >> blmblm wrote: >>> Aaaarrrrgggghhhh ..... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, except "bastards" is masculine in nature which renders > my comment about being smart quite oxymoronic. Yeah, but do you really want to talk like Nixon and Lance, both male (M-W Online examples)? Next you'll want to talk like Dubya. Not me, sez I. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> blmblm wrote: >>> Criteria is plural. Don't let the bastards get you down. >> Criteria is also singular. Those bastards are rather smart. >> Well, except "bastards" is masculine in nature which renders >> my comment about being smart quite oxymoronic. > Yeah, but do you really want to talk like Nixon and Lance, both male > (M-W Online examples)? Next you'll want to talk like Dubya. Ha! Ha! Shutup. Nixon and Lance, this is ok, but my talking like Dubya, now that is insulting! Next you will have me speaking out of both sides of my mouth like that lawyer, Alberto Gonzales. Jeeesshhh! I like to think myself an eloquent and sophisticated speaker like educated and lovely Anna Nicole Smith. Purl Gurl >> blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, except "bastards" is masculine in nature. No, it's not: /quote/ This extract, from the Order Book of the Breconshire Quarter Sessions of 1785, reads as follows: "County- Mary Kinsey having been lately delivered of a Female Bastard Child in the Parish of Llanspithit [Llansbyddyd] in the said County and she having given different accounts as to the Father of the said child and it appearing to this Court that she is a lewd and disorderly Person It is therefore Ordered that she be taken into Custody and confined in the House of Correction to hard Labour for the Space of one Month." /endquote/ <http://history.powys.org.uk/history/common/bastard1.html> > which rendersmy comment about being smart quite oxymoronic > > Purl Gurl - smart bitch SignatureLes >>> blmblm wrote: >>> Criteria is plural. Don't let the bastards get you down. >> Criteria is also singular. Those bastards are rather smart. >> Well, except "bastards" is masculine in nature. > No, it's not: > /quote/ > This extract, from the Order Book of the Breconshire Quarter Sessions of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of Correction to hard Labour for the Space of one Month." > /endquote/ There you go. Those bastard British men, one of them knocked up innocent young Mary, then all those bastard men blame her for becoming pregnant, then those bastard men punish her and her girl. Bastard men, all alike, British or otherwise. Purl Gurl - deserves to be drawn and quartered > In article <o-adnfTxpcBIyJTbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, [...] > Once again it appears that I have Not Kept Up with language evolution. > I did make some effort to confirm my belief that "criteria" was still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I guess I should bookmark the online M-W for next time. I'm one of auntie OED's biggest fans, but she can't be relied on for recent developments. The 1989 second ed was still a pretty partial revision of the century-old first; and the current on-line third edition is proud to be a work in progress, and is still in great part unchanged from the second and hence the first. The one to use for the present is the _New Shorter OED_, but that's available only for outright purchase; and even that won't be able to keep up with the latest concise dictionaries from various publishers. M-W is updated regularly; but, we sometimes see here, it can be misleading through concision, especially on dates of first recorded use. > Or get another hobby. That would be a counsel of despair. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > blmblm wrote: (snipped) >> Once again it appears that I have Not Kept Up with language evolution. >> I did make some effort to confirm my belief that "criteria" was still >> more correctly regarded as plural, but <deep sigh> apparently I didn't >> check the right sources. (I tried the online OED via my workplace's > I'm one of auntie OED's biggest fans, but she can't be relied on for > recent developments. The 1989 second ed was still a pretty partial > revision of the century-old first; and the current on-line third edition My 1976 Webster's unabridged international, about a foot thick and twenty-five pounds in weight, does NOT note "criteria" as being acceptable singular usage. I read carefully with a magnifying glass. Purl Gurl Purl Gurl filted: >My 1976 Webster's unabridged international, about a foot thick and >twenty-five pounds in weight, does NOT note "criteria" as being >acceptable singular usage. I read carefully with a magnifying glass. Unlike COED, Webster's makes you buy your own....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Purl Gurl filted: >> My 1976 Webster's unabridged international, about a foot thick and >> twenty-five pounds in weight, does NOT note "criteria" as being >> acceptable singular usage. I read carefully with a magnifying glass. > > Unlike COED, Webster's makes you buy your own....r I had the use of W3NID when I was still at the Cape. The Top Dog's secretary had it by his fax machine in a separate little room. I was probably the only one using it with any regularity (yeah, I was already posting in AUE). SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> Purl Gurl filted: >>> My 1976 Webster's unabridged international, about a foot thick and >>> twenty-five pounds in weight, does NOT note "criteria" as being >>> acceptable singular usage. I read carefully with a magnifying glass. >> Unlike COED, Webster's makes you buy your own....r > I had the use of W3NID when I was still at the Cape. The Top Dog's > secretary had it by his fax machine in a separate little room. I was > probably the only one using it with any regularity (yeah, I was already > posting in AUE). Yeah, I keep my Godzilla size dictionary in a closet. All this huge dictionary does is collect dust. However, there are rare times I want to research a very obscure word. These are times my giant dictionary proves to be worth its weight. An unabridged international version is great for obscure words, most certainly useful for foreign words common to English. My huge dictionary, I bought used at a Goodwill store. I understand why someone would donate one of those to charity. I have been dragging around my copy for over twenty years. My husband tossed my dictionary in the trash in Oklahoma. He tossed it in the trash in Texas and tossed it one more time in California. Third time, I threatened to smash his head with my dictionary if he ever tosses it again. Only objection I have is size of print. Even wearing my reading glasses I still cannot see the print clearly. I truly do have to fetch my reading magnifying glass to read the tiny crowded print. Purl Gurl >> blmblm wrote: >>> Once might be a typo. Several times .... Oh well, all right; >>> "criteria" is singular in PGLand. >> The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century <let > If I'd just waited a *FEW MORE MINUTES* before posting my reply to > Purl Gurl, maybe I'd have noticed your post and saved myself some > embarrassment. In our family, we have a rule to which we adhere. When we are to make a positive comment about a person, we are to blast away with little thought given to our words. This encourages us to be positive and friendly; being positive is easy, a no-brainer. When we are to make a negative comment about person, our rule is to stop, think, reconsider, be careful and to make certain our negative comment is justified. After careful and fair thought, if justified, then rip the person apart without mercy. Setting aside being positive knowing being positive is always right, our justification for ripping a person apart is simple and logical. A negative response from one of us in our family is a response to a person who is being hateful. We do not tolerate hatred. When a person behaves hatefully towards another, this person loses all inherent rights to be treated with respect, and this person grants an unlimited license to his victim to respond in any form or fashion with warranted disregard for common courtesy and common respect. A hateful person is entitled to nothing and is to be driven away. You and many others here direct hatred towards me on a daily basis. I treat you according to our family rule, a just and fair rule. I do, however, measure my responses in keeping with law enforcement; meet force with equal force, no more. I do not abuse. I am fair but firm. I retain my dignity. You, plural, should adopt our family rule. Ours is a good and just rule. Purl Gurl [ snip ] > In our family, we have a rule to which we adhere. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You and many others here direct hatred towards me on a daily basis. Speaking only for myself: I will admit to having some motives that are less than admirable and to perhaps picking at you more than a truly kind and fair-minded person would. But I deny that any of this rises to a level that would justify the word "hatred". That is a strong word, and by applying it to petty snarkiness and sarcasm I think you devalue it, making it less effective in opposing truly bad behavior. > I treat you according to our family rule, a just and fair rule. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You, plural, should adopt our family rule. Ours is a good and just rule. Another good rule is the one said to be a favorite of people who deal with groups of children, especially young ones: "I don't care who started it, I want you all to stop it, now!" I'll try if you will. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. blmblm wrote: (snipped - read thread for context) > Speaking only for myself: > I will admit to having some motives that are less than admirable and > to perhaps picking at you more than a truly kind and fair-minded > person would. But I deny that any of this rises to a level that > would justify the word "hatred". That is a strong word, and by > applying it to petty snarkiness and sarcasm I think you devalue it, > making it less effective in opposing truly bad behavior. My apologies for forgetting you are female. My forgetfulness does exemplify how little attention I give gender in discussion groups. Our notion of hatred is a topic which has been debated forever and will be debated forever. I believe, within our human minds, we can never settle nor classify what constitutes hatred. Emotions such as dislike and loathe are derived of hatred. Sometimes I suspect anger is also derived of hatred. My personal viewpoint is hatred is the base emotion. How we express our hatred varies in degree of intensity, dislike to seething hatred. Reasons for this emotion of hatred, I doubt we will ever understand. Contrasting, love is easy to understand. This is a base emotion which is expressed in varying degrees; like to madly in love. Our emotion of love is instinctive. This is an emotion which guides us to those "things" which are comfortable and comforting. This is an emotion which lends to Survival of the Fittest. Returning to hatred, this is an emotion which leads to death and destruction. I do not believe hatred is instinctive but rather is our modern twisted version of fright and fright is instinctive. Fight or Flight are two very important instincts related to survival. Our flight instinct is easy to understand; fear causes us to flee. Fight is complex. Fight comes about we are cornered have no other choice but to fight, within a natural setting. War, murder and such are not natural events. Hatred is very often associated with our Fight instinct. Turning this around, hatred leads to fighting. My view is our modern way of living has so removed us from natural settings, our minds have so twisted around our Fight instinct, we have become hateful which seems to be misdirected fear and fear is a base root of our Fight instinct. More simple yet very complex, when we are cornered by a social setting, such as verbal disagreement, we unconsciously become fearful which boils up into some expression of hatred; argument, acrimony, whatever. This complex part is our ego, self-confidence and other notions which serve to screw up our thinking. I do not sort nor categorize nor label hatred. Whether annoyance, dislike, loathing or extreme hatred, all are of the same root; hatred. Quite illogical for people to engage in verbal fisticuffs or even physical fisticuffs when there is an absence of a threat to safety and life. I drive too slow on a freeway, a driver pulls out a gun and kills me. This is an expression of hatred and is clearly illogical. I comment to Lieblich he is childish, his response is a long rambling article littered with hatred. His safety and life, neither are threatened yet he behaves as if I am attempting to kill him. His behavior is clearly illogical. His behavior is controlled by his ego, not his mind. He engages in my "ego masturbation" which does not benefit his ability to survive as Mother Nature intends. Name calling, mind games, insults, harassment, whatever, to me all those activities and more, are hatred and I do not hesitate to label a person hateful when those behaviors are displayed. Our difference here is viewpoint. You view hatred as a ladder with each rung a step leading up to hatred; each rung is a level of intensity. I toss this ladder and view things related to hatred, as all hatred. You might find interesting I also lump all things related to love, as all being love. You say you like me. I view this as you love me. Although tempted, I am avoiding discussion of these emotions we feel when a person causes injury to or death of a person we love. I believe we can agree love is The Good and hatred is The Evil. Purl Gurl > blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My apologies for forgetting you are female. My forgetfulness does > exemplify how little attention I give gender in discussion groups. Good heavens. Do we have a truce here? I'm not sure I've observed you apologizing for something in this group. Accepted. I had been assuming that you were doing it on purpose and speculating about why a person would do that. Which suggests that perhaps all along the problem has been, as they say, a failure to communicate. Trying to determine who threw the first punch is rarely a very productive activity, but I was curious, so I looked up what I think is the first exchange between you and me in this group. If you are right that you are never "hateful" except in response to "hate" (quotes because we probably don't mean the same thing by those words), then we have a failure to communicate from day one. Cutting and pasting from Google's archives, ugly line breaks (added by them?) and all, here is what I wrote: In article <2JednTbGXMPZgkzYnZ2dnUVZ_v-tn[20]...@giganews.com>, > John Dean wrote: > > I see the various dictionary definitions of "elderly" but they tend not to > > put a number on it. > > Out of interest, if aue fans saw "an elderly lady" as a description, what > > age range would they think of? > Seventy plus. > This begs a question, "What of elders?" "Oy"? as someone else has pointed out. [ snip ] > As a child, my elders are those of twenty years old and older. "Oy"? I know this syntax is useful and understandable and increasingly common, but, um, strictly speaking isn't there some kind of error here, since "as a child" presumably is not to meant to modify "my elders"? [ snip ] To me this seemed like an innocuous attempt to point out mistakes in someone else's post, which is a recognized group custom and not meant to be hostile, and also to get opinions on a point of usage I was not sure about. You replied: blmblm wrote: >> John Dean wrote: >>>Out of interest, if aue fans saw "an elderly lady" as a description, what >>>age range would they think of? >>This begs a question, "What of elders?" > "Oy"? as someone else has pointed out. Have you no original thoughts? Life is lovely when you are a mindless puppet, yes? Is "oy" an abbreviation for oyster? >> As a child, my elders are those of twenty years old and older. > "Oy"? I know this syntax is useful and understandable and increasingly > common, but, um, strictly speaking isn't there some kind of error here, > since "as a child" presumably is not to meant to modify "my elders"? * rolls her eyes * Jeesh! What a lame invention to falsely legitimize trolling. Purl Gurl I'm not sure how to interpret that other than as a succession of uncalled-for insults. So either you didn't take my post in the spirit in which I wrote it, or you didn't mean your post in the spirit in which I read it. And, from my point of view, it went downhill from there. I'd prefer to call it a failure to communicate, with no implication of who if anyone is at fault, and continue the truce. It will probably help if I don't attempt to reply to more of your posts. [ snip -- "without prejudice?" ] SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. blmblm wrote: >> blmblm wrote: (snipped - read thread for context) >>> Speaking only for myself: >> My apologies for forgetting you are female. My forgetfulness does >> exemplify how little attention I give gender in discussion groups. > Good heavens. Do we have a truce here? I'm not sure I've observed > you apologizing for something in this group. Accepted. I had > been assuming that you were doing it on purpose and speculating > about why a person would do that. Be sure my treating you as one of the boys, is not deliberate. I truly forgot you are female. This is my fault and I do apologize. Clearly I am not free from embarrassing myself as are all. Reviewing my articles will yield notice of my adjusting my usage of language to gender specific. Today, I engaged Maria in dialog, presented myself as firm but fair. I made concessions, offered her support of her viewpoints. I adjusted my attitude to her gender. I do not make concessions to the boys and infrequently offer support of their views. However, I do make exceptions for gentlemen of this group; there are men here, surrounded by childish boys. No need to point to those gentlemen, who they are is quite clear. Boys are aggressive, girls are assertive. Boys fight, girls negotiate. I treated you with aggression because I believed you to be a boy. This aggression is intended but misdirected to the wrong gender. I made a mistake and this is my wrong. I am sorry for this. > Which suggests that perhaps all along the problem has been, as they > say, a failure to communicate. (snipped a lot) > Trying to determine who threw the first punch is rarely a very > productive activity, but I was curious, so I looked up what I > think is the first exchange between you and me in this group. > Cutting and pasting from Google's archives, ugly line breaks (added > by them?) and all, here is what I wrote: Your efforts to understand, your efforts to locate and share past dialogs, your efforts to communicate, indicate sincerity. > I'd prefer to call it a failure to communicate, with no implication > of who if anyone is at fault, and continue the truce. It will > probably help if I don't attempt to reply to more of your posts. I cannot, in good conscience, ask a truce of you. To do so would be to ask you to compromise. Requiring you to somehow, someway, limit your personal beliefs would be wrong. I would rather enjoy you "as is" so to speak. Knowing you is more desirable than knowing a faux facade of you created through compromise. Unrelated to you, directly, there is a deep rooted problem. This problem is pandemic to news groups. Virtually all news groups are filled with hateful people and you understand my meaning of hateful. I have yet to visit a news group which is not predominately populated by men and is not predominately hostile. This is a reflection of the basic nature of men; aggressive and controlling. Anonymity within news groups creates and encourages keyboard cowards. Here, men and women but mostly men, can and are highly hostile because there is a lack of reality, there is a lack of real people. These hostile people are both enabled and facilitated in being hostile; they engage in activities which would never take place face-to-face. These are keyboard cowards who take advantage of anonymity, and take advantage of "distance" created by a virtual environment. Mob mentality rules news groups and this group is a virtual lynch mob. This group is amongst the more hostile of news groups. I have been participating in news groups and similar since the early Nineties and other internet media significantly prior. Mine is over a decade's worth of experience, both enjoyable and uncomfortable. In time, people, decent people, become hardened, become calloused, become expectant of hostility. An article is read by one of these burnt people, an article which appears hostile is read and a hardened person will quite automatically assumes the writer is just another hostile a.shole. These events lead to problems such as you and I are experiencing. This hostility and hatred displayed in this group on a daily basis only serves to create problems such as I have touched upon. These hateful people around here do not enjoy "wins" rather destroy this news group, of which they are aware and simply do not care; their egos weigh more than good hearts, ego rules. I cannot ask a truce of you because this would be to make demands of you. However, I can offer friendship free of strings. Again, I am sorry for those wrongful behaviors of mine directed at you. Purl Gurl >Unrelated to you, directly, there is a deep rooted problem. This problem >is pandemic to news groups. Virtually all news groups are filled with >hateful people and you understand my meaning of hateful. I have yet to >visit a news group which is not predominately populated by men and is >not predominately hostile. Perhaps alt.support.breastfeeding would fill your needs. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Clearly I am not free from embarrassing myself as are all. Well, I will say that I feel well and truly apologized to, and that's more pleasant than feeling abused for no reason I could discern. I also feel as if I am now hearing from yet another of your many personas, and I was already having enough trouble figuring out which Purl Gurl was writing a particularly post. Well, so it goes. I'm not sure what if anything to say about the rest of your post so will put it and its -- grandmother? predecessor of predecessor? -- aside to think about another time. [ big snip ] Except for this .... > I cannot ask a truce of you because this would be to make demands of you. > However, I can offer friendship free of strings. That is kind, and I'll assume that it's sincerely meant. I think you might be overdoing it just a bit, though -- I mean, I'm the one who said "we seem to have a truce, let's continue that", so you're not demanding anything. But -- "like, whatever"? SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > > blmblm wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that's more pleasant than feeling abused for no reason I could > discern. I also, after a bit of reflection, am very uncomfortable getting such gentle treatment after so many rounds of abuse based on your mistaken impression about my gender and perhaps age. I'm the same person, perhaps trying a little harder to make nice, but still capable of obsessing over petty details and indulging in petty spite -- probably just the behavior that gave you the wrong impression in the first place. I get enough of that "did I get special and better treatment because I'm female, and isn't that unfair to the males?" stuff in my professional life. I'd just as soon not get more of it here, however well-meant. It seems rude to meet copious apologies with "on second thought, thanks but no thanks", but I guess that is more or less what I'm saying. Or it's possible I'm taking it all too seriously. A former regular in one of the other groups where I lurk refers to Usenet as "amUSENET", which is pretty close to my thinking too. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > blmblm wrote: >>> blmblm wrote: >>>>> blmblm wrote: (snipped - read thread for context) >> Well, I will say that I feel well and truly apologized to, and >> that's more pleasant than feeling abused for no reason I could >> discern. > I also, after a bit of reflection, am very uncomfortable getting such > gentle treatment after so many rounds of abuse based on your mistaken > impression about my gender and perhaps age. I will quote a sage saying of my own, "Never look a gift horse in the wrong end - you may see yourself." Purl Gurl > > blmblm wrote: > >>> blmblm wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Never look a gift horse in the wrong end - you may see yourself." Then again, gift horses should sometimes be examined, lest one suffer the fate of the Trojans in the well-known story. SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. blmblm wrote: >> blmblm wrote: >>> blmblm wrote: >>>>> blmblm wrote: >>>>>>> blmblm wrote: (snipped - read thread for context) >> I will quote a sage saying of my own, >> "Never look a gift horse in the wrong end - you may see yourself." > Then again, gift horses should sometimes be examined, lest one > suffer the fate of the Trojans in the well-known story. Of course, this war is all the fault of Helen, as told by men of history. "Take it like a man, blame it on a woman." Purl Gurl > blmblm wrote: > >> blmblm wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Of course, this war is all the fault of Helen, as told > by men of history. You clearly know as much about history as you do about English usage, or drugs for that matter. Less than zero. > blmblm wrote: > > >> blmblm wrote: [ snip ] > Reviewing my articles will yield notice of my adjusting my usage > of language to gender specific. Today, I engaged Maria in dialog, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > group; there are men here, surrounded by childish boys. No need to > point to those gentlemen, who they are is quite clear. And yet two posts upthread, you wrote: >> My apologies for forgetting you are female. My forgetfulness does >> exemplify how little attention I give gender in discussion groups. You don't pay attention, but you adjust your usage? That seems inconsistent to me. > Boys are aggressive, girls are assertive. Boys fight, girls negotiate. > > I treated you with aggression because I believed you to be a boy. I have a little trouble reconciling this behavior (okay to treat all presumed boys aggressively from the start) with the family rule you described upthread, in which hostility is to initiated only after careful consideration. > This aggression is intended but misdirected to the wrong gender. > I made a mistake and this is my wrong. I am sorry for this. Would we be having this conversation if I had *not* said "I am not a boy"? but simply quoted the initial exchange from the other thread and said "I'm sorry if this came across as hostile, I didn't mean it that way?" If so, good. If not, why? > > Which suggests that perhaps all along the problem has been, as they > > say, a failure to communicate. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your efforts to understand, your efforts to locate and share past > dialogs, your efforts to communicate, indicate sincerity. You give me too much credit. Personally I think the fact that I dug through Google's archives to find the previous exchange indicates an unpleasant unwillingness to let something go, though I suppose I could claim some credit for putting some effort into researching the facts rather than relying on my memory. Again, would we be having this conversation if you still thought I was a boy? [ snip ] > Mob mentality rules news groups and this group is a virtual lynch mob. > This group is amongst the more hostile of news groups. YMMV, maybe. Of the newsgroups I follow fairly well, this is among the less hostile, and at least when people are hostile they sometimes express it entertainingly. The entertainment value may be less for the target of the hostility. I'd agree to some extent that there is a mob mentality, but in all the instances where I've observed the start of a bad interaction between a lone poster and the mob, the lone poster had done something to provoke hostility. Sometimes the provocation is inadvertent, sometimes the response is out of proportion, etc., etc. -- I don't think I need to continue, right? anyone who's spend much time in Usenetland has probably observed many such exchanges and has opinions about them. > I have been participating in news groups and similar since the early Nineties > and other internet media significantly prior. Mine is over a decade's worth > of experience, both enjoyable and uncomfortable. I've been reading news since sometime in the late 1980s, posting only very rarely early on, a little more in the last few years. [ snip ] SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > blmblm wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My apologies for forgetting you are female. My forgetfulness does > exemplify how little attention I give gender in discussion groups. That's presumably why you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about "you boys". > > blmblm wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That's presumably why you go on and on and on and on and on and on and > on and on about "you boys". Well, she did say, in another thread some weeks ago, that she was "boy crazy" (quotes because she didn't hyphenate, and I would). It may have been meant as a joke. For the curious, hm .... The message ID seems to be _ZadnVC_kuKP9H7YnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com or this ridiculously long link should get you there http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/tree/browse_frm/thread/7c32d671 0af104f0/3df67a2dd9c4514d?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.usage.english%2Fbro wse_frm%2Fthread%2F7c32d6710af104f0%2Fd16d2964f774fb0e%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum% 3D1%26hl%3Den%26#doc_d1f1e5db525bdf16 SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. > (No, no egrets - only ravens..) Non ! Rien de rien Non ! Je n'égrette rien C'est payé, balayé, oublié Je me fous du corbeau ! SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>>>> I disagree. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard > English as you dictate good writers are to use. I would certainly accept Descartes as an example of good French writing, but English? SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> "Taha, recently recovered from an act of food poisoning by an Anglo, >>>>>> is enjoying her meal of buffalo and black-eyed peas with her tribal >>>>>> leader, Sees Far. Without warning, she feels, she senses she has >>>>>> been food poisoned again, "I have been food poisoned." Glancing >>>>>> at Sees Far, she quickly recognizes a familiar distressed look >>>>>> upon his face, "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned." >>>>> I think you are offering proof that it is not standard English. >>>> I disagree, adamantly disagree. With your not providing reason >>>> nor explanation why you think my language usage is not standard, >>>> I shall respond in kind. >>> If you had provided a quotation from a "standard" English author, it >>> would have been fine, but instead, you gave us a story in a setting >>> where the reader might well expect that English was not, in fact, the >>> mother tongue of the speakers. >> I understand. Those writers who do not make use of standard English >> are to be rejected as writers lacking talent. How disturbing for me >> to learn writers such as Shakespeare, Descartes, Wollstonecraft >> and Clemens are not good writers because of their not using standard >> English as you dictate good writers are to use. > I would certainly accept Descartes as an example of good French writing, > but English? Are you suggesting we can only compare English writing styles with only styles of authors who write in English? Are you suggesting Latin, French, German and other languages are not viable for comparison to English writings? More simply, we are not allowed to compare the writing style of our English Samuel Clemens to the writing style of French Victor Hugo? Of course, this is ludicrous, as you well know. You are not setting a standard for English language usage, you cannot, this is impossible; there exists no set standard for English language usage. What you are doing is grasping at straws, desperately searching for any lame excuse to prove yourself right, with disregard for truth. "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned" is perfectly acceptable and is perfect grammar. You, like others here, are not discussing writing style rather are impotently trying to make me look bad, which is your only and true intent, just like others. You, like the others, are not here to discuss English language usage, you are here to masturbate your egos at the expense of others, and to your own loss of dignity. Purl Gurl [ ... ] > > I would certainly accept Descartes as an example of good French writing, > > but English? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > More simply, we are not allowed to compare the writing style of our > English Samuel Clemens to the writing style of French Victor Hugo? Ya know, this is an excellent example of Purl Gurl's technique of "argumentation." Ignoring both whatever points she has previously made and what her interlocutor has said about those points, she launches off on a wholly new tangent, tossing off all sorts of arguments about all sorts of things that are totally unrelated to what came before. She even snips most of what came before, so her latest meanderings don't even have the false context of the prior thread. It's impossible to deal with this in a systematic manner, of course, because one is surrounded by chaos. If this were, say, The Two Ronnies, it would be greeted with applause for the sheer brilliance of the performance. But to someone actually trying to say something, it's a bit like entering a restaurant and being given a menu offering such items as kerosene, coaxial cable, and bottled cobra venom. It's dada. > Of course, this is ludicrous, as you well know. You are not setting > a standard for English language usage, you cannot, this is impossible; > there exists no set standard for English language usage. See what I mean? > What you are doing is grasping at straws, desperately searching for > any lame excuse to prove yourself right, with disregard for truth. And then comes the insult, aimed this time not at all "boys," but at Rob Bannister, who deserves it even less than I do the ones I get. > "Sees Far, we have been food poisoned" is perfectly acceptable and > is perfect grammar. Where and to whom? See the AUE FAQ: <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxguidel.html>. > You, like others here, are not discussing writing > style rather are impotently trying to make me look bad, which is your > only and true intent, just like others. Don't worry, Kira, you're not paranoid. We're really out to get you. Why have an honest discussion of English usage when we have an opportunity to make Purl Gurl look bad? > You, like the others, are not > here to discuss English language usage, you are here to masturbate > your egos at the expense of others, and to your own loss of dignity. Purl Gurl, Mind Reader. SignatureBob Lieblich Mind Blower > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > such items as kerosene, coaxial cable, and bottled cobra venom. It's > dada. You've put into words, much better than I could (and did), my feeling of bafflement in reading some of Purl Gurl's posts. Thank you! [ snip ] SignatureB. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. On Mar 27, 1:19 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > In article <4608813B.AEE1E...@yahoo.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > You've put into words, much better than I could (and did), my feeling > of bafflement in reading some of Purl Gurl's posts. Thank you! I only pop into aue occasionally nowadays. I think I stopped being a regular about the same time Purl Gurl appeared. There is a solid tradition here of always having a resident loon. This can help keep things interesting, but it seems to me that PG's entertainment value is limited. But Dada never struck me as something that can hold one's attention for long. So I guess my comment is really directed toward Bob: why do you bother? I think there is little danger of unwary innocents taking PG seriously. Richard R. Hershberger > blmblm wrote: >>>Ya know, this is an excellent example of Purl Gurl's technique of >>>"argumentation." Ignoring both whatever points she has previously [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>came before. She even snips most of what came before, so her latest >>>meanderings don't even have the false context of the prior thread. >>>It's impossible to deal with this in a systematic manner, of course, >>>because one is surrounded by chaos. If this were, say, The Two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>such items as kerosene, coaxial cable, and bottled cobra venom. It's >>>dada. >>You've put into words, much better than I could (and did), my feeling >>of bafflement in reading some of Purl Gurl's posts. Thank you! > I only pop into aue occasionally nowadays. I think I stopped being a > regular about the same time Purl Gurl appeared. There is a solid > tradition here of always having a resident loon. This can help keep > things interesting, but it seems to me that PG's entertainment value > is limited. But Dada never struck me as something that can hold one's > attention for long. > So I guess my comment is really directed toward Bob: why do you > bother? I think there is little danger of unwary innocents taking PG > seriously. God Damn! What a comical mutual ego w.nking male circle jerk! You boys would fall down if not for holding each others creamed hands! Purl Gurl [ ... ] > > I only pop into aue occasionally nowadays. I think I stopped being a > > regular about the same time Purl Gurl appeared. There is a solid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You boys would fall down if not for holding each others creamed hands! From a PG post earlier todsy: "When we are to make a negative comment about person, our rule is to stop, think, reconsider, be careful and to make certain our negative comment is justified. After careful and fair thought, if justified, then rip the person apart without mercy." How much thought did you give to your response to Richard? Answering Richard's question -- It's good exercise. SignatureBob Lieblich Feel those muscles swell > >> jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No, my point is this. WHY IS IT STRANGE? North Americans, especially, are renowned for bending every rule of grammar and good taste at haphazard, of converting not only nouns but adjectives into verbs ('wierd' for example). Surely, you're not arguing that something is idiomatic only if someone has said it. There are plenty of idiomatic sentences that no-one's ever said --idiomatic, because they wouldn't sound strange if someone did say it. What makes the use of food poisoning as a verb so strange, particularly since the other verb 'poisoned' is something no-one should say unless it was deliberate poisoning? That's what I want to know. >> "I've been food poisoned" is probably unheard of outside your own >> mind. It is unidiomatic, and that is as kind a thing as I can say [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > haphazard, of converting not only nouns but adjectives into verbs > ('wierd' for example). I think you meant "weird", as in Calvin's "Verbing weirds language." > Surely, you're not arguing that something isidiomatic only if > someone has said it. Look up the meaning of idiomatic. It appears to involve some people or, at least, someone. > There are plenty of idiomatic > sentences that no-one's ever said --idiomatic, because they wouldn't > sound strange if someone did say it. What makes the use of food > poisoning as a verb so strange, particularly since the other verb > 'poisoned' is something no-one should say unless it was deliberate > poisoning? That's what I want to know. I think you are really off on this one. The sentences might be grammatical, but if no one has ever said them, they certainly can not be said to be idiomatic. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ [...] >> "I've been food poisoned" is probably unheard of outside your own >> mind. It is unidiomatic, and that is as kind a thing as I can say [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 'poisoned' is something no-one should say unless it was deliberate > poisoning? That's what I want to know. Check the definition of "strange" for your answer. It's strange because it's, um, er, strange. There are imponderables here, but in this case I think we can find a few close analogues. We can agree that "food poisoning" refers to microbiological infections, and so is found in distinction from other kinds of poisoning even if the vector is food in both cases. So we can talk of "arsenic poisoning", "lead poisoning", etc, just as we talk of "food poisoning". But we _don't_ typically say *"he was arsenic-poisoned", so we don't feel able to say *"he was food-poisoned". In much the same way, I can say "a knife wound" without feeling able to say *"he was knife-wounded" in ordinary speech or prose. You will no doubt already be thinking of "storm damage/storm-damaged" and "bomb damage/bomb-damaged": why are these idiomatic if the others aren't? I don't know. And that's why it's a question of idiom, not of mere syntax. You may say, "Well, 'food-poisoned' jolly well ought to be acceptable", to which I would reply with the profound philosophical maxim, "You can't get 'is' from 'ought'". As a note to what you said above, actually not even Americans _really_ bend "every rule of grammar and good taste at haphazard": the most outlandish-seeming usages do actually conform to rules, or they wouldn't be comprehensible. Rules of taste are, well, a matter of taste. I've mentioned before that swapping the functions of parts of speech isn't in itself a breach of rules: it's a fundamental regular feature of the English language, and I'm sorry you don't like it. English just doesn't _have_ parts of speech in exactly the way some other languages do: this is disguised or even forgotten for simplicity in teaching, and it's easy to see why. "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" > "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." That one works better with the AmE pronunciation of "aluminum". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent |encroachments of those in power kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden (650)857-7572 |usurpations. | James Madison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." > >That one works better with the AmE pronunciation of "aluminum". You think so? As I learnt it, as a child in the UK, it wasn't "my man" but "son", and the whole thing had a regular tumpty tumpty tumpty tumpty tum rhythm which wouldn't work with "aluminum". Perhaps, for clarity, I need to add that "aluminiuming" is pronounced "AL-um-IN-yum-ING". SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perhaps, for clarity, I need to add that "aluminiuming" is pronounced > "AL-um-IN-yum-ING". That does help. I assumed it was a full /&lju'mIni@mIN/ ("al-yu-MIN-ee-um-ing"), which makes it clear enough that it isn't as much of a tongue twister for me. The American pronunciation has the last stress on /lu/, puts all of the m's and n's in unstressed syllables: /@'lumIn@mIN@mm@m/. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >>>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >last stress on /lu/, puts all of the m's and n's in unstressed >syllables: /@'lumIn@mIN@mm@m/. See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: "If you jiggle it a little it'll open" ....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" (snipped) > See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: > "If you jiggle it a little it'll open" This technique of yours also works with glass ceilings. Purl Gurl Purl Gurl filted: >> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: > >> "If you jiggle it a little it'll open" > >This technique of yours also works with glass ceilings. Not something I have to worry about...they're too damn hard to keep clean....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Purl Gurl filted: >>> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: >>> "If you jiggle it a little it'll open" >> This technique of yours also works with glass ceilings. > Not something I have to worry about...they're too damn hard to keep clean. Not if you have a cleaning maid. MUUUHAHAHAHAAA! Purl Gurl > > Purl Gurl filted: > >>> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not if you have a cleaning maid. Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning maid"? I understand that "lady" is a condescending term for a cleaning woman, that's why I prefer "cleaning maid", but I'm wondering if those terms can be used interchangeably. >>> Purl Gurl filted: >>>>> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: >>>>> "If you jiggle it a little it'll open" >>>> This technique of yours also works with glass ceilings. >>> Not something I have to worry about...they're too damn hard to keep clean. >> Not if you have a cleaning maid. > Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning > maid"? > I understand that "lady" is a condescending term for a cleaning > woman, that's why I prefer "cleaning maid", but I'm wondering if > those terms can be used interchangeably. Here in Southern California, I hear "cleaning lady" more often than not. I cannot recall hearing "cleaning maid" out in the public. I have read this, heard this in movies and other sources, but not spoken in public. Cleaning woman, I have not heard this but have heard, house cleaner. There is probably a cultural inflection around here because a majority of cleaning ladies are illegals; Hispanics. This would tend to usage of most common terms, gardener instead of landscaper, worker instead of laborer and cleaning lady instead of maid. Politically correct "day laborer" is used on news and media rather than "worker" which is more common to the general public. I would expect to hear "cleaning maid" or simply "maid" in more affluent areas such as Beverly Hills, Brentwood and the Rodeo Drive area. This would be an inflection of the elite or perceived to be elite. This "cleaning maid" of mine, I know the source. Late last night I watched a movie on television, "Maid In Manhattan" starring Jennifer Lopez, a rather delightful movie! Purl Gurl Purl Gurl filted: >Cleaning woman, I have not heard this but have heard, house cleaner. You didn't see "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"?... I weep for the level of cultural deprivation in this newsgroup...looks like I have another clip to upload to YouTube soon....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Purl Gurl filted: >> Cleaning woman, I have not heard this but have heard, house cleaner. > You didn't see "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"?... > I weep for the level of cultural deprivation in this newsgroup...looks like I > have another clip to upload to YouTube soon. I missed "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." However, I have watched "Nudist Colony Of The Dead" which is a well choreographed entertaining musical. http://www.pirromount.com/ncod.html I am not completely deprived of high culture. Purl Gurl > I missed "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." > > However, I have watched "Nudist Colony Of The Dead" which is > a well choreographed entertaining musical. > > http://www.pirromount.com/ncod.html How did I manage to miss that one? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I missed "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." >> However, I have watched "Nudist Colony Of The Dead" which is >> a well choreographed entertaining musical. >> http://www.pirromount.com/ncod.html > How did I manage to miss that one? Most likely for the same reason you missed, "A Polish Vampire In Burbank." I really like Mark Pirro. He is a master of spoofing our arrogant and pretentious human nature. Here is a short two or three minute video during which Pirro discusses hypocrisy and censorship often displayed by people, and as often displayed in this newsgroup. His is an excellent commentary about our human behavior, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxN-F85rVY I will warn readers Mark uses our word "nipple" during his dialog. Should your ears be offended by our word "nipple" I suggest you not watch his short video. Purl Gurl > You didn't see "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"?... > > I weep for the level of cultural deprivation in this newsgroup...looks like I > have another clip to upload to YouTube soon....r Don't cry for me, R H Draney. I know that movie better than any person should. My parents got me the video tape when I was 13, the perfect age for it. SignatureSML off to shave her tongue Sara Lorimer filted: >> You didn't see "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"?... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >should. My parents got me the video tape when I was 13, the perfect age >for it. I had a deprived childhood...at thirteen, I still had to wait ten more years before I could see it in the theatre.... At least I could see Steve on "The Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour"....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >> > Purl Gurl filted: >> >>> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning >maid"? I think they are essentially the same, but around here a "cleaning lady" is someone who comes in regularly and is hired directly by the person whose house she cleans. A "cleaning maid" is a temp who works for a service (Merry Maids, in this area) and the householder hires the service on occasions. In the first case, the householder would say "I have a cleaning lady". In the second case, the householder would say "I hired a maid service for the party" (meaning someone to come in and clean before and/or after). That's probably just local usage, though. >I understand that "lady" is a condescending term for a cleaning >woman, that's why I prefer "cleaning maid", but I'm wondering if >those terms can be used interchangeably. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning > maid"? > > I understand that "lady" is a condescending term for a cleaning > woman, that's why I prefer "cleaning maid", but I'm wondering if > those terms can be used interchangeably. My feeling is that "maid" is putting the person in a subservient position. My cleaning lady is treated more or less like one of the family. The only time I might use the word "maid" is to describe the people who come and tidy up hotel rooms. SignatureRob Bannister >> Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning >> maid"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > family. The only time I might use the word "maid" is to describe the > people who come and tidy up hotel rooms. What about live-in maids? They do exist. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> Is there any difference between a "cleaning lady" and a "cleaning >>> maid"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What about live-in maids? They do exist. I'd love one, but she might lose her maidenhood. Perhaps when I win a couple of million dollars at Lotto, otherwise such things are rather out of my sphere. SignatureRob Bannister >> > Purl Gurl filted: >> >>> See also the advice for dealing with a sticking door: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >woman, that's why I prefer "cleaning maid", but I'm wondering if >those terms can be used interchangeably. If we called our cleaning lady a 'cleaning maid' she would quit, on the spot, despite many years of friendship and troubles shared. There is no master/servant relationship inherent the householder/cleaning lady relationship and the householder forgets it at their peril, in the UK, IME. SignatureMike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997 >>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Perhaps, for clarity, I need to add that "aluminiuming" is pronounced >"AL-um-IN-yum-ING". It is by some, I've no doubt. COD at onelook and I pronounce it alyooMINNi@m(ing). SignatureMike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997 >>>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It is by some, I've no doubt. COD at onelook and I pronounce it >alyooMINNi@m(ing). I bet COD doesn't use this particular tongue-twister as an example, though. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>>>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I bet COD doesn't use this particular tongue-twister as an example, >though. My SOED uses the same pronunciation. I'm assuming your 'yum' is as in good to eat, not two vowels, y-um. I pretty well only ever have occasion to say 'aluminiuming' when trying the tongue twister, so why would I pronounce it differently then, than on other (largely putative) occasions? SignatureMike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997 [...] >>>> Perhaps, for clarity, I need to add that "aluminiuming" is >>>> pronounced "AL-um-IN-yum-ING". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My SOED uses the same pronunciation. I'm assuming your 'yum' is > as in good to eat, not two vowels, y-um. [...] This is interesting, as I don't know that I've ever noticed "alyoo. . ." from British lips, though it's certainly the Brit dictionary pron: I associate it with Australian speech. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>>>>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >twister, so why would I pronounce it differently then, than on >other (largely putative) occasions? I'm in danger of getting slightly lost here, but as far as I can unravel it I was arguing (and continue to argue) that the American version,"aluminuming", wouldn't work better than the English because, in the English version I learnt, "aluminiuming" is pronounced "AL-um-IN-yum-ING" and thus fits the tumpty-tumpty rhythm of the thing. The "yum" syllable is, I grant you, a bit of an elision. I won't argue with the COD and SOED, but I'm unclear whether what you looked up was "aluminiuming" (which is not in the OED) or simply "aluminium" (which I entirely agree may be pronounced "alyooMINNi@m", though actually I pronounce it with a second-syllable "um" rather than "yoom"). I don't think that the pronunciation of any particular word minus an "-ing" is necessarily a guide to precisely how it's pronounced when it's been verbed by adding the "-ing". And, like you, the only time I meet "aluminiuming" is in this tongue-twister. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>>>> "Are you copper-bottoming them, my man?" >>>>>>> "No, I'm aluminiuming 'em, m'm." [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >pronounced when it's been verbed by adding the "-ing". And, like you, >the only time I meet "aluminiuming" is in this tongue-twister. I find it rather bizarre that in various parts of the country reasonably sane and educated adults have breaking off from their other occupations to mutter 'aluminium' to themselves, in an attempt to find out how they pronounce it. I agree that the cases of aluminium and aluminiuming could be different, although quite a lot us will have come across the tongue-twister before we had much occasion to use the name of the metal. Aluminium I think there is variation in the first and last vowel sounds or combinations of vowel sounds. In the first syllable people say either Al-y-oo, although the y sound may very compressed, or Al-yoo. I find it quite difficult to say the latter without at least a hint of a separate y or i sound between the al and the oo, so there is probably a continuum of pronunciations. In the last vowel group, again, there is variation between ee-um and yum sounds; I'm an ee-um person myself. Aluminiuming Although I agree the pronunciation could change with addition of -ing, I don't think it does, much, for me. Then a lot of my pronunciation is influenced by spelling, since I came across a lot of words in books before I heard them in speech. Coming back to the tongue-twister, extra vowel sounds make it harder and I suppose that is why I inserted them. How the Brits say the words is an empirical question. Masters thesis anyone? SignatureMike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997 > No, my point is this. WHY IS IT STRANGE? North Americans, especially, > are renowned for bending every rule of grammar and good taste at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'poisoned' is something no-one should say unless it was deliberate > poisoning? That's what I want to know. As any learner of a foreign language knows, your argument just doesn't work. The learner (this could even be a first language speaker who is still a child) acquires a number of patterns over time and tries to apply them in a new situation. Frequently, this works; at other times, it doesn't. Why? Because it just doesn't; the phrase simply has not become an accepted idiom. Poets and humorists do this all the time and often achieve their desired aim of a new, arresting image or something that sounds so silly that people laugh. However, this does not work for non-native speakers, because their audience will always assume it is a mistake rather than a deliberate, new creation. I know; I have tried the same sort of thing in other languages and have learnt my lesson. SignatureRob Bannister > What makes the use of food > poisoning as a verb so strange, particularly since the other verb > 'poisoned' is something no-one should say unless it was deliberate > poisoning? Where do you get the idea that "poisoned" only applies to deliberate poisoning? That's certainly contrary to common usage, e.g. look at all the recent headlines about "poisoned" dog food in the U.S., all of which refer to *inadvertent* poisoning by food intended to be safe. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html> >>Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in >>the symptoms?- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > poisoning' which I presume you're saying just as you're starting to > feel funny having just eaten something. Unless that's some sort of pondial difference, that sounds totally weird to me. Basically, "food poisoning" is illogically treated linguistically as a disease, so just as you say "I've got measles", you say "I've got food poisoning". Of course you can go for fancier words, but that's what most people say. SignatureRob Bannister > > > 1. I've got food poisoning. > > > 2. I've got food poisoned. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in > the symptoms? Why not simply: "I was poisoned" ? SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>>>1. I've got food poisoning. >>>>2. I've got food poisoned. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why not simply: > "I was poisoned" ? Indeed, why not? The only other example of poisoning which specifies the source that I can think of at the moment is lead poisoning but there must be others. "Poisoned" without any qualifier seems to carry a connotation of evil intent by another party, whereas food or lead poisoning seems to imply inadvertent ingestion of something toxic. But if one's food has been tampered with deliberately, I think that would be described as poisoning rather than food poisoning. Suddenly I'm not hungry... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>>1. I've got food poisoning. > >>>>2. I've got food poisoned. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > if one's food has been tampered with deliberately, I think that would be > described as poisoning rather than food poisoning. That's precisely what I thought when I asked Purl Gurl whether "from" [as in "suffering from f.p.] is included in the very symptoms. "food poisoning" is the name of a disease, which means you are getting it as an entire phrase i.e. each separate word is somehow devoided of its original meaning. > Suddenly I'm not hungry... You would be afraid even to ingest water: the minute you drink it, it will forcefully find its way out, from either side. On a positive note, food poisoning is a very fast way to loose a few pounds. > On a positive note, food poisoning is a very fast way to loose a few > pounds. I'd rather lose them. > > On a positive note, food poisoning is a very fast way to loose a few > > pounds. > > I'd rather lose them. So do I. Sorry for the typo and especially for the truth of our assertions. >> On a positive note, food poisoning is a very fast way to loose a few >> pounds. > >I'd rather lose them. Well, if you loose them, they are likely to be lost, too. Personally, I don't much care if I know where they are or not, as long as they are no longer on me. >>>On a positive note, food poisoning is a very fast way to loose a few >>>pounds. >> >>I'd rather lose them. > > Well, if you loose them, they are likely to be lost, too. A common effect of food poisoning is loose bowels. SignatureRob Bannister laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: > > Why not simply: > > "I was poisoned" ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Suddenly I'm not hungry... Polonium 210 poisoning? SignatureDavid ===== > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Polonium 210 poisoning? Blimey, I hope not.... oh, I see, you weren't speculating about the cause of my loss of appetite. Yes, but wouldn't you just describe it as poisoning generally? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: > > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cause of my loss of appetite. Yes, but wouldn't you just describe it as > poisoning generally? My point was that the phrase "Polonium 210 poisoning" was frequently heard in the news for a couple of months. More than 10,000 hits. Mind, there are 283,000 hits for "arsenic poisoning". SignatureDavid ===== >> laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >cause of my loss of appetite. Yes, but wouldn't you just describe it as >poisoning generally? Specific types of poisoning I've heard are: pesticide poisoning cadmium poisoning mercury poisoning alcohol poisoning methanol poisoning carbon monoxide poisoning shellfish poisoning (could be construed as a subset of food poisoning) radiation poisoning ptomaine poisoning (again, food poisoning subset?) testosterone poisoning There are many more, of course, but these, I have actually[1] heard. I was tempted to say "literally" here, but I wanted to make sure y'all knew it really happened. >Specific types of poisoning I've heard are: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >There are many more, of course, but these, I have actually[1] heard. Make room for "dog poison". Today's local newspaper carried a front page story a the dog food manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario (Canada) contains aminopterin, a poison used to kill rats, and is responsible for the deaths of 16 local dogs. Over 1,000 deaths of dogs and cats blamed on this product nationwide have been reported. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> Specific types of poisoning I've heard are: > Make room for "dog poison". Today's local newspaper carried a front > page story a the dog food manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario > (Canada) contains aminopterin, a poison used to kill rats, and is > responsible for the deaths of 16 local dogs. Over 1,000 deaths of > dogs and cats blamed on this product nationwide have been reported. Rat poison contaminated wheat glutton, which is an ingredient in thousands of food stuffs for human consumption. Purl Gurl > Tony Cooper wrote: >> Make room for "dog poison". Today's local newspaper carried a front >> page story a the dog food manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rat poison contaminated wheat glutton, which is an ingredient in > thousands of food stuffs for human consumption. Yeah, gluttony will kill ya. Contaminated gluten might too. SignatureSkitt no wheat glutton he. >> Tony Cooper wrote: >>> Make room for "dog poison". Today's local newspaper carried a front >>> page story a the dog food manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario >>> (Canada) contains aminopterin, a poison used to kill rats, and is >>> responsible for the deaths of 16 local dogs. Over 1,000 deaths of >>> dogs and cats blamed on this product nationwide have been reported. >> Rat poison contaminated wheat glutton, which is an ingredient in >> thousands of food stuffs for human consumption. > Yeah, gluttony will kill ya. Contaminated gluten might too. Ha! Ha! How funny! * slips on her dunce cap * How did my brain fart smell? Like roses? What is truly comical about this is a few minutes before responding, I looked up "gluten" in my dictionary to be sure I am thinking of the right item, even double checked Google news to be sure my rat facts are right. Even after some effort to be sure I am correct on this gluten, I end up typing "glutton." A few days back, I typed "soccer punch" instead of "sucker punch." No doubt others have noticed my brain farts of this nature. There are times I remind myself of the Jewish girl on NCSI television show; she constantly pulls the same stunts. Purl Gurl [...] > > Rat poison contaminated wheat glutton, which is an ingredient in > > thousands of food stuffs for human consumption. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Skitt > no wheat glutton he. I'm told wolverines are voracious, but taste revolting. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Indeed, why not? The only other example of poisoning which specifies the > source that I can think of at the moment is lead poisoning but there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if one's food has been tampered with deliberately, I think that would be > described as poisoning rather than food poisoning. But, suppose you had been drink poisoned? SignatureRob Bannister >> > > 1. I've got food poisoning. >> > > 2. I've got food poisoned. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Why not simply: > "I was poisoned" ? To me, that implies an intensional act, whereas food poisoning is typically at worst due to negligence and usually simple accident (from the point of view of those preparing the food, at least). I got food poisoning at dinner last night. There was something wrong with the chicken. I was poisoned at dinner last night. Somebody slipped something into my drink. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > To me, that implies an intensional act, whereas food poisoning is > typically at worst due to negligence and usually simple accident Or intense concentration? SignatureRob Bannister (snipped a lot) >>> What is the correct version, if any? >>> 1. I've got food poisoning. >>> 2. I've got food poisoned. >>> 3. I'm being food poisoned. >> Hmm, well. You cannot "get" food poisoning. However, >> you can "suffer" food poisoning. >>I suffer food poisoning. >>I am suffering food poisoning. [...] >> I suffered food poisoning. > Can I say "I suffer _from_ food poisoning"? Or is "from" included in > the symptoms? Yes, "suffer from food poisoning" is very acceptable, just fine. This returns to your excellent comment "subtle perception." My personal opinion is to not use "from" for your context. However, my personal opinion is of no value for your context. Use of your "suffer from food poisoning" is very good, highly acceptable. My personal choice would be to use a context of suffering symptoms "of" food poisoning, but my personal choice would be not as acceptable as your "from" choice; yours is a better choice than my personal choice. Your "subtle perception" leads me to be deliberately anal retentive and leads me to demonstrate a problem with language talents; annoyance. Food poisoning is not a true disease, not in a sense which is common, such as a cold or the flu. There are so many root causes of food poisoning, so many different causation, we almost need to use a surrounding context to "pin down" what is actually being suffered. However, using too much surrounding context would prove annoying. Most common type of food poisoning is our ingesting toxic substances produced as a waste product from bacteria thriving on tainted food. This is not a disease but rather a true poisoning, hence we use a generic label, "food poisoning." However, food poisoning also includes infection by both bacteria and viruses. When one of those organisms is ingested, then grows and spreads, this is a disease, not a type of poisoning we label food poisoning. We are presented different context. Am I suffering poisoning _from_ a toxic substance which is _from_ waste product _from_ bacteria, or am I suffering symptoms _of_ a bacterial infection or viral infection? Of course, when you are so sick, so spewing from both ends of your body you cannot decide whether to seat your butt on a toilet or stick your head in a toilet, when you are this sick, you are not about to be asking, "Do I suffer food poisoning or suffer an infection?" Oh no, you are too busy squirting and puking to even think. A language talent is standing just behind you and asks, "Would you better describe your symptoms so I can decide if you are suffering _from_ poisoning or you are suffering symptoms _of_ an infection?" My answer would be to muster strength, plug both ends, then jump up, grab this annoying language talent jerk, shove his head in my filthy toilet, then flush. What an annoying a.s is he! "Subtle perception" includes our having enough perception to know when to use high level language and when to use common language. "I am suffering from food poisoning" is an excellent choice and conveys a clear message to all, common and talent alike, and is a phrase much easier to utter between squirts and pukes. Purl Gurl >> What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >but not good grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" >food poisoning as with a cold or the flu. Not in your usage, perhaps, but in mine it's perfectly acceptable. Cheers - Ian (BrE: Yorks., Notts., Hants.) >>>What is the correct version, if any? >>> 1. I've got food poisoning. >>> 2. I've got food poisoned. >>> 3. I'm being food poisoned. >>> The last one doesn't sound right because it somehow conveys that >>> someone was poisoning me on purpose. What I'm trying to say is that >>> together with other people who attended a party, I (or you, or we, >>> etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired >>> accidentally via altered food. >> Many will say, "I got a cold." This is acceptable >> but not good grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" >> food poisoning as with a cold or the flu. > Not in your usage, perhaps, but in mine it's perfectly acceptable. Clearly you enjoy challenges in reading comprehension. Read my words, again, slowly and carefully, "This is acceptable but not good grammar." I write, "This is acceptable...." yet you argue I did not write this. My suggestion is you begin a course of study which will improve your reading comprehension skills. Purl Gurl >>> Many will say, "I got a cold." This is acceptable but not good >>> grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" food poisoning as with a cold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "This is acceptable but not good grammar." Doesn't your "this" refer to "I got a cold"? It certainly seems to in your paragraph. In any case, I don't see the grammatical argument, but rather an argument from logic based on the semantics of the words. To which I'd respond that you appear to be able to "get" members of the covert category of temporary physical ailments, including diseases (a cold, the flu, chicken pox), symptoms (a headache, a sore throat, a runny nose, a fever, hearburn, an upset stomach), or physical trauma (a sore hand, a dislocated finger, a broken leg, a concussion). Food poisoning also fits into that class. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all." Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Oh, there is," said Susan. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and (650)857-7572 |gullibility." http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Many will say, "I got a cold." This is acceptable but not good >>>> grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" food poisoning as with a cold >>>> or the flu. >>> Not in your usage, perhaps, but in mine it's perfectly acceptable. >> Clearly you enjoy challenges in reading comprehension. Read >> my words, again, slowly and carefully, >> "This is acceptable but not good grammar." > Doesn't your "this" refer to "I got a cold"? It certainly seems to in > your paragraph. To validate your statement you must, for readers, associate my "good grammar" with having a cold. My "this" is directly associated with my "grammar" in my sentence. What rationale would you present both "this" and "grammar" are related to having a cold? You are directly indicating, paraphrased, "Having a cold is acceptable but having a cold is not good grammar." Rather odd message you send readers. Purl Gurl >>>>> Many will say, "I got a cold." This is acceptable but not good >>>>> grammar. You cannot "get" or "catch" food poisoning as with a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You are directly indicating, paraphrased, "Having a cold is acceptable > but having a cold is not good grammar." I am directly indicating that you appeared to be saying, paraphrased "I got a cold", which many will say, is acceptable, but not good grammar. This does not say anything about the acceptability or grammaticality of "I got food poisoning". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to |it, but when you need one, you need kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will (650)857-7572 |do. | Bill McNutt http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Hmm, well. You cannot "get" food poisoning. However, > you can "suffer" food poisoning. Here in England, we commonly say that we "get" food poisoning. I got food poisoning from a Greek omelette restaurant in Bristol once. Purl Gurl, please go somewhere else to talk out of your arse, there's a good girl (or "gurl"). > What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. If you want to say that you had food-poisoning yesterday, I'd go with 'I had food poisoning yesterday. 'Have got' is a combination you should avoid if you can help it. If you're saying something like "I've had food poisoning before" then that is the version to use. The last one is in a different tense altogether; so I don't know how it became an option -- but the correct version of that is 'I'm having food-poisoning' jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > > What is the correct version, if any? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you want to say that you had food-poisoning yesterday, I'd go with > 'I had food poisoning yesterday. Agreed. > 'Have got' is a combination you should avoid if you can help it. Why? It's perfectly standard UK English. I've got a sailing dinghy and a bassoon. > If you're saying something like > "I've had food poisoning before" then that is the version to use. The > last one is in a different tense altogether; so I don't know how it > became an option -- but the correct version of that is 'I'm having > food-poisoning' No it's not. That sounds like non-native English. SignatureDavid ===== > jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why? It's perfectly standard UK English. I've got a sailing dinghy > and a bassoon. No, its colloquial. But why the 'got' at all? You could just say 'I have a sailing dinghy and a bassoon' That's less trouble to say, sounds better, and is the correct version besides. > > jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > > > > What is the correct version, if any? > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Why? It's perfectly standard UK English. I've got a sailing dinghy > > and a bassoon. > No, its colloquial. But why the 'got' at all? You could just say > 'I have a sailing dinghy and a bassoon' That's less trouble to say, > sounds better, and is the correct version besides. English is as English does. David is quite correct that "have got" is common and unexceptionable in contexts such as his example. The availability of an alternative form does not in any way weaken its legitimacy. We know you're not a native speaker, Jinhyun, even though your use of English is strikingly fluent for a non-native. You expose your weaknesses (and possibly mislead the innocent) when you make unqualified statements that are just plain wrong. As I may have said before, I'm not exactly the poster child for humility myself, but you need a dose of it at least as badly as I do. SignatureBob Lieblich Tugging his fetlock > > > jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No, Fowler himself agrees with me that 'have got' is colloquial at best. Personally, I see no grounds for using this form. As I've said before, the proper form is easier to say and in ultra-colloquial phrases such as "you got nothin' "and 'gotta light?' the 'have' has no business. I do agree though that I need to think a little before posting. Sometimes a sentence may fit perfectly into a certain context, but taken in isolation may seem wrong because you're looking at it wrong or aren't picturing the right context.(See my previous post) Categorical statements even if hazarded should be hazarded as just what they are -- guesses. I realize that any other way is churlish and unscientific. [ ... ] > > We know you're not a native speaker, Jinhyun, even though your use of > > English is strikingly fluent for a non-native. You expose your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, Fowler himself agrees with me that 'have got' is colloquial at > best. Fowler died more than seventy years ago. > Personally, I see no grounds for using this form. No one is forcing you to do so, but you needn't be so quick to criticize those who do. > As I've said > before, the proper form is easier to say and in ultra-colloquial > phrases such as "you got nothin' "and 'gotta light?' the 'have' has no > business. Homework assignment: See if you can figure out what's wrong with your reasoning. > I do agree though that I need to think a little before posting. Very true. You'd enjoy a net gain in available time, because you wouldn't have to go around mopping up after your errors. > Sometimes a sentence may fit perfectly into a certain context, but > taken in isolation may seem wrong because you're looking at it wrong > or aren't picturing the right context.(See my previous post) Quite so. > Categorical statements even if hazarded should be hazarded as just > what they are -- guesses. I realize that any other way is churlish and > unscientific. No hairshirts necessary. I sometimes let a possibly controversial post simmer for a while, doing other things, then read it over again before sending. Many times I just delete the whole thing. Even a couple of minutes to allow it to cool can make all the difference. SignatureBob Lieblich You should have seen some of the stuff I've deleted before sending (I don't save any of it) r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com had it: > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Fowler died more than seventy years ago. Jinks, as my children would say. > > Personally, I see no grounds for using this form. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Homework assignment: See if you can figure out what's wrong with your > reasoning. Damn. I answered this in advance. > > I do agree though that I need to think a little before posting. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > before sending. Many times I just delete the whole thing. Even a > couple of minutes to allow it to cool can make all the difference. Ditto. Post in haste, repent at leisure. SignatureDavid ===== Robert Lieblich wrote, in <46052C32.9CA6B4B0@yahoo.com> on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:48:34 -0400: > No hairshirts necessary. I sometimes let a possibly controversial > post simmer for a while, doing other things, then read it over again > before sending. Many times I just delete the whole thing. Even a > couple of minutes to allow it to cool can make all the difference. It is for this reason that I have removed the Send Now button from my composition window, leaving only the Send Later one. SignatureNick Spalding Robert Lieblich wrote, in very small part: > I sometimes let a possibly controversial > post simmer for a while, doing other things, then read it over again > before sending. Many times I just delete the whole thing. Oh, you do that too? I thought I was the only one who deletes good stuff before sending it. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Robert Lieblich wrote, in very small part: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, you do that too? I thought I was the only one who deletes good stuff > before sending it. "Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out." Boswell quoting Johnson quoting "an old tutor." <http://www.samueljohnson.com/writing.html>, item 536. Or, if you prefer, "Murder your darlings." It appears that this one has a thousand creators: <http://shallowland.blogspot.com/2006/07/murder-your-darlings.html>. Occasionally I bite my tongue and post something I think really great. I almost always regret it. SignatureBob Lieblich Murder of darlings > > Robert Lieblich wrote, in very small part: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Johnson quoting "an old tutor." > <http://www.samueljohnson.com/writing.html>, item 536. [...] And I understand that Justice O.W.Holmes reached his conclusions rather quickly for the taste of his fellow-justices, so he allowed his judgements, or perhaps his judgments, to "mature in wood" -- in his desk drawer. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > > English is as English does. David is quite correct that "have got" is > > common and unexceptionable in contexts such as his example. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > phrases such as "you got nothin' "and 'gotta light?' the 'have' has no > business. Fowler himself has been dead for 75 years. The fact that he's still right about those latter phrases doesn't make him right about every part of current English. > I do agree though that I need to think a little before posting. > Sometimes a sentence may fit perfectly into a certain context, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what they are -- guesses. I realize that any other way is churlish and > unscientific. Spoken like a gentleman. My observation is that, if you say something is correct English, you are nearly always right. If you say something is wrong, you are less likely to be correct. Who was it? Asimov? When a distinguished and elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. When he states that something is not possible, he is very likely wrong. SignatureDavid ===== > Who was it? Asimov? When a distinguished and elderly scientist > states that something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. > When he states that something is not possible, he is very likely > wrong. Clarke: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Wikipedia cites it to a 1962 essay entitled "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failre of Imagination". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com had it: > > Who was it? Asimov? When a distinguished and elderly scientist > > states that something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Wikipedia cites it to a 1962 essay entitled "Hazards of Prophecy: The > Failre of Imagination". Not bad, from memory. SignatureDavid ===== > unqualified statements that are just plain wrong. As I may have said > before, I'm not exactly the poster child for humility myself, but you > need a dose of it at least as badly as I do. Have to say i agree with you, there, Bob. Much as I like jinhyun. At least he's not as annoying as PG. jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > > jinhyunsh...@gmail.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'I have a sailing dinghy and a bassoon' That's less trouble to say, > sounds better, and is the correct version besides. I could, but I don't. I'm a native UK English speaker with 50 years of real-life experience, and that's how it comes out. Your version is comprehensible, but it's not how people actually talk around here. I see the ship I can see the ship The ship is in sight I am able to see the ship Does the fact that one of these is right make the others wrong? SignatureDavid ===== >>What is the correct version, if any? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > became an option -- but the correct version of that is 'I'm having > food-poisoning' Uh? Your dialect of English is very unusual. "I'm having a great time" is fine, but it doesn't work with food poisoning. Perhaps you are talking to the waiter: "She's having the duck, he's having the oysters and I'm having the food poisoning". SignatureRob Bannister > What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. Less formally, you can say, "I'm sick. I got food poisoning at a party." You can also come down with food poisoning, though the expression may be slightly old-fashioned. (Or it may not.) -- Jerry Friedman > What is the correct version, if any? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc) have the annoying the symptoms of food poisoning acquired > accidentally via altered food. Frankly I'd say the first. I've got food poisoning. It is the only one to fit in with English grammar. Mind I'd worry more about trying to get an ambulance. http://rozier-orleans-diary.blogspot.com >> What is the correct version, if any? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > get an ambulance. > http://rozier-orleans-diary.blogspot.com Yeah, #3 might be a signal that your wife is putting an inheritance plan in action. Slowly, but surely ... gosh, this stuff tastes funny ... SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.